Skip to main content

Well, It's About Time

Well, It's About Time

How two massive New York news publishers ended up fighting over intellectual property.



On 20 November 2020, two of the largest most influential media organisations on the planet locked horns over their rights to the thing which Gollum so eloquently put as, 'the thing that devours all things, or for those that are not as up to date on their Lord of the Rings trivia, 'Time'. 


As fancy bathrooms are no longer exclusively stacked with copies of the magazine, earlier this year, Time magazine diversified their offering. It unveiled a new short-form online interview series called 'TIME100 Talks' which featured online interviews with journalists, talents and thought leaders. As the videos became popular, Time magazine began to branch out with this brand, establishing Time Talks for dedicated topics like health. Accordingly, they applied to have the trademark 'TIME100 Talks' registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO). As of the date of this writing, the status of this application is still 'pending'.


This success then attracted the ire of the New York Times, whose holding company has a registered trademark for the words' Times Talks'. The company, arguably most famous for its crosswords or angering the President, decided then to commence proceedings against Time magazine for trademark infringement. 


The main arguments that the courts will need to decide is whether TIME100 Talks is an infringement of 'Time Talks' or an extension of the trademark, 'TIME100'. 


It is a surprise that it has taken this long for the companies to meet regarding trademark infringement as the New York Times has been around since 1851 and Time magazine was first published in 1923. Since the commencement of both publications, they have both relied heavily on their marketing of the word 'time'. 


But what will happen if two established companies with consistent branding and registered trademarks go toe-to-toe in the boxing ring of justice? Well, most likely, not too much, as there is too much at stake. Generic usage of a trademark is the killer of all brands and one of the biggest threats to a company's intellectual property. Since 1788, the word Times has been used in relation to newspapers and the reporting of the news. It is one of the default placeholder names for a newspaper or publication with the location of the publication often preceding the word. In fact, Times began being used by newspapers in England before making it to New York, so it may be argued that it was always in common usage. 


Accordingly, if this were ever to make it to trial, both parties are at risk of having their registered trademarks cancelled if the court determines that it has fallen into generic usage. Going the way of the 'flip-phone', originally a Motorola trademark, when a trademark loses its distinguishing nature, it can often lead to an abandonment of the product/brand itself. Although this is admittedly, unlikely given the circumstances surrounding this matter, it is always worth considering. 


With this case, we will see soon whether the court determines that there is enough evidence to proceed to trial and whether each parties' trademarks are at risk. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game With the recent announcement that EA will be venturing back into the world of college sports for one of their upcoming games. It is essential to look at the reasons for its (over a decade-long) hiatus from making college sports games. Several high-profile cases took down a very profitable area of sports gaming almost ten years ago, over a simple but crucial element to the games, the players.  Privacy and personality laws in the United States is an emerging area of law founded on the basis that is based in tort law. It deals with the ideas that a person has rights: 1. To be left alone; 2. To not have public disclosure of private facts; 3. To not be depicted in a false light; and 4. To not have your name and likeness misappropriated.  On these critical tenets, personality laws have become increasingly more prevalent as, due to advances in technologies, it is becoming easier for one's likeness to be copied and distributed.  Th

NEVER Read the Comments!

The Federal Court this week delivered their judgement on  Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd  [2020] FCA 1040 going all out by handing out whopping fines, legal costs orders and ordering Service Seeking Pty Ltd to establish a, undoubtedly expensive, compliance system to be monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  What did they do that was so bad?  According to the Federal Court of Australia, they created a system in which businesses could write their own customer reviews.  With a rating system less defined than what constitutes a 5-star rating in an Uber trip, businesses could write a review, assign a star rating and send it off to their customer for approval. If the customer didn’t respond or even open the email containing the review, then the review was automatically published online after a set period. By estimates of the Court, approximately 80% of the reviews published on the website for the period that this sch