Picture
Some people are undoubtedly cool peeps. They have tens of thousands of twitter followers, they wear the latest and greatest, and they do endorsement commercials for Subway and Verizon. If you are a cool peep, you probably make appearances in video games like Guitar Hero or the latest installment of Madden NFL. Those appearances include you, in all your pixelated glory, doing the moonwalk or making calls from your cellphone during a touchdown dance. Is it so outrageous to think that your character in these appearances is protected by a trademark?
 
When you think of trademarks, you generally think of words or symbols attached to particular companies right? Okay, so the occasional celebrity who has decided to attach their name to a line of perfumes and clothing (see Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber , or any other number of pop-star turned teenybopper idol with merchandise). Sure there is a motivation for this caliber of social star to get trademark protection for their name so they can make those glittery perfumes and woodsy colognes and sell backpacks and the like. But what about mere pop culture figures that aren’t even trying to make their name a household phrase? Can just being the public eye and having certain traits attributable to you as a person be enough to yield trademark protection?
 
Managing Intellectual Property recently published its list of the 50 most influential people in intellectual property and some of the candidates might shock you. In America, Tim Tebow and Angelina Jolie made the list, along with a host of people who you might expect to be on the list of influential figures, you know, like judges, lawmakers, and prominent I.P. attorneys involved in major lawsuits.
 
Tim Tebow and Angelina Jolie? Intellectual property innovators? Obviously the pair didn’t make the list for their contributions to major patent legislation or their involvement with the latest copyright case between YouTube and a major media company (pick a media conglomerate, any media conglomerate). So the tie-in must have been trademark law.
 
Indeed it is. Tim Tebow was cited for his preeminence as an athlete who has exploited his talents and fame through branding and trademark protection. As the author of this article pointed out, the attempt by athletes in general to protect their names as trademarks raises questions about ownership, what constitutes a trademark, who controls the mark, and the scope of the monopoly right by one person to a particular name. Could one of these questions be whether a person can get a trademark based on their persona? I find the question about what constitutes a trademark particularly interesting, specifically personas and the extent to which a trademark can be obtained as a result of a persona.

Picture
Oh, the masks we wear!
Persona is a social or character role played by an actor. The word has latin origins and was originally used as a word to describe masks worn by actors in a play. In the legal sense, your persona is your name, likeness, or other indicia of identity that can be exploited commercially. So we have two components of a legally protectable identity: the identity itself (something which can identify you to third parties) and a commercial value. Some people might think of a persona as a potentially copyrightable subject matter because a persona can be attributable to traits of fictional characters such as James Bond and Jack Ryan. But the purpose of extending copyright protection to characters that are products of fictional works is different from that of protecting a persona of a real-life person. Here’s a good primer on copyright protection in characters involving a fictional work including all the great literary super-star characters.
 
Protecting a real-life person goes to the value of that person’s recognition in the marketplace by consumers and not so much as a result of the originality attributed to the character traits that the person has acquired by virtue of the work of an author, screenwriter, or artist. Of course, a whole bevy of courts in the U.S. have held that real-life celebrities (you know, the non-fictional characters) have a protectable right in their identities and personas, akin to a trademark owner’s rights in a trademark such that any use of that persona by someone else, could constitute false association or endorsement. After all, if one celebrity is known for a particular identity that includes a collection of moods and appearances that everybody can attribute to that particular celebrity, what’s the harm in protecting that? But it isn’t quite the same thing as a trademark because we are talking about a whole subset of things, the right to use your image and exploit it commercially. That’s still worth something though, especially if you are an NFL superstar with recognizable street cred.
 

This street cred in the context of your personality as a celebrity is good will (no not the Goodwill retail store). And good will is the kind of stuff that a trademark protects. So if personas are protectable as trademarks, why is it that you see personas used or commented on all the time in video games, songs, and movies? If Terrell Owens (that’s T.O. for sports enthusiasts) celebrates every touchdown by doing something truly off-the-wall, are those kinds of unique celebrations (when included in the latest installment of Madden NFL) enough to require a video game developer to give some monetary contribution to T.O.? We will take up that issue next time in Trademarks and Personas Part II: Protecting Pithy Playmakers.

 


Comments

You possibly will not realize this however, your website actually actually helped in accomplishing the task.

Reply
01/08/2015 10:21am

I am really impressed by the way you detailed out anything. It really is actually going to help me lots. Thanks for sharing your thoughts so clearly.

Reply
06/16/2015 2:21am

There is a great difference between what and why. The word what denotes the specialty or the function of certain thing that how does it do work while the term why denotes the reason behind the system.

Reply
11/11/2015 2:19am

Nice blog and very interesting. If someone wants to learn guitar or looking for best guitar reverb pedals then visit my blog for detailed information.

Reply

Certainly, in each commonsense sense indistinct right on time of you breadth for a moneylender, complete on the cast of bike that you charge to purchase. A vital arrangement, new cartage see a lower strengthen rate. Furthermore, are all the included striking back aback giving for new bicycles.

Reply
01/10/2016 1:36am

No devotion blend affiliation can really encourage you to close your record however here and there it is the most flawlessly astounding way to deal with oversee control direct keep the bits from being sorted out and reviewing that you hundreds or even a dazzling varying dollars in overdraft charges.

Reply
03/03/2016 10:33pm

I constantly like to read a top quality content having accurate info pertaining to the subject and the exact same thing I found in this article. Nice job.

Reply
03/13/2016 7:04am

The basal benifiet by addendum off altered to your case is you won't accusation to accordance your ID, on the off adventitious that you starting now see a record. This may accretion you a little fortune. My appraisal to you is exchange about achieve calls be told!

Reply
04/07/2016 12:17pm

In the accident that afore the change's end agreement set up, the borrower can't advantage, and the accord has been to an alarming amount advanced with specific acclaim upgrades. The amalgamation absolutely gets the borrower's aegis agent title.

Reply

There are additionally allowances that will accouterment the acclimation of afire for you, actually in case you're a little abutting or don't access a adherent agents to reach, handle discharges, or do postliminary.

Reply
06/13/2016 4:24am

Every company have the certificate and doing the business legalize. As wrong as we are able to and are not straining to do so we then we should not have boundaries of whom we help as wrong as our help is needed or we are called upon to do so.

Reply



Leave a Reply