Rozier is being sued for selling Scary Terry merchandise

[apc]

https://sports.yahoo.com/new-york-company-sues-celtics-guard-terry-rozier-scary-terry-merchandise-174841089.html

I cant say i am surprised, i am far from an expert but looks like their case is valid.

[GreenEnvy]

Maybe we can now attribute his poor play to this.

[nickagneta]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

[CelticsElite]

Terry needs to settle that. I always wondered how he got away with putting the mask on a shirt

[tarheelsxxiii]

Seems silly, and only makes me like Terry even more. 

[SHAQATTACK]

I 've been scard silly ....good while now


we ll be stuck with him long term 

[Roy H.]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

Well, it's not a straight replication of a painting.  They took something that was presumably in the public domain, and then added their artistic spin on it.  The ghost face Halloween mask has become iconic in its own right, above and beyond Munch's painting.

One of the silly things here?

Rozier ... trademarked his Scary Terry clothing line in July 2018.

Shouldn't his attorney mentioned that trademarking something that was already trademarked might pose a problem?

Put, I know very little about intellectual property law.  I know the general defenses tend to be fair use and/or parody.  I think there's at least good faith argument that this is parody.

[Celtics4ever]

I think they probably make more money litigating than selling that logo.

[Celtic Fan Forever]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

Well, it's not a straight replication of a painting.  They took something that was presumably in the public domain, and then added their artistic spin on it.  The ghost face Halloween mask has become iconic in its own right, above and beyond Munch's painting.

One of the silly things here?

Rozier ... trademarked his Scary Terry clothing line in July 2018.

Shouldn't his attorney mentioned that trademarking something that was already trademarked might pose a problem?

Put, I know very little about intellectual property law.  I know the general defenses tend to be fair use and/or parody.  I think there's at least good faith argument that this is parody.

Does responding to this count as studying for my law school finals?

I don’t know if we can say it’s a parody. Courts have been all over the place with it but it seems like his purpose is commercial gain, which isn’t going to help his case.

[Big333223]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

Well, it's not a straight replication of a painting.  They took something that was presumably in the public domain, and then added their artistic spin on it.  The ghost face Halloween mask has become iconic in its own right, above and beyond Munch's painting.

One of the silly things here?

Rozier ... trademarked his Scary Terry clothing line in July 2018.

Shouldn't his attorney mentioned that trademarking something that was already trademarked might pose a problem?

Put, I know very little about intellectual property law.  I know the general defenses tend to be fair use and/or parody.  I think there's at least good faith argument that this is parody.

It does strike me as odd that Terry wouldn't have had a lawyer make sure this was all ok. Maybe they're already ready for this with a defense?

[Roy H.]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

Well, it's not a straight replication of a painting.  They took something that was presumably in the public domain, and then added their artistic spin on it.  The ghost face Halloween mask has become iconic in its own right, above and beyond Munch's painting.

One of the silly things here?

Rozier ... trademarked his Scary Terry clothing line in July 2018.

Shouldn't his attorney mentioned that trademarking something that was already trademarked might pose a problem?

Put, I know very little about intellectual property law.  I know the general defenses tend to be fair use and/or parody.  I think there's at least good faith argument that this is parody.

Does responding to this count as studying for my law school finals?

I don’t know if we can say it’s a parody. Courts have been all over the place with it but it seems like his purpose is commercial gain, which isn’t going to help his case.

Ha. I still remember the parody hypotheticals from law school. One involved a local company making an ad playing off Mastercard’s “Priceless” campaign. Production values were poor, and it had some level of humor (intentional or not).  I thought it was clear infringement due to the financial gain aspect, and because the new company hadn’t really changed the formula, they just copied it in an inferior way.

But, my professor disagreed, haha. Her view of parody was expansive.

[Big333223]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

Well, it's not a straight replication of a painting.  They took something that was presumably in the public domain, and then added their artistic spin on it.  The ghost face Halloween mask has become iconic in its own right, above and beyond Munch's painting.

One of the silly things here?

Rozier ... trademarked his Scary Terry clothing line in July 2018.

Shouldn't his attorney mentioned that trademarking something that was already trademarked might pose a problem?

Put, I know very little about intellectual property law.  I know the general defenses tend to be fair use and/or parody.  I think there's at least good faith argument that this is parody.

Does responding to this count as studying for my law school finals?

I don’t know if we can say it’s a parody. Courts have been all over the place with it but it seems like his purpose is commercial gain, which isn’t going to help his case.

Ha. I still remember the parody hypotheticals from law school. One involved a local company making an ad playing off Mastercard’s “Priceless” campaign. Production values were poor, and it had some level of humor (intentional or not).  I thought it was clear infringement due to the financial gain aspect, and because the new company hadn’t really changed the formula, they just copied it in an inferior way.

But, my professor disagreed, haha. Her view of parody was expansive.

When Weird Al parodies a song, he's also doing it strictly for commercial gain too, right? Sometimes he'd use another artist's music to make fun of the artist (like Smells Like Nirvana) but more often he'd just use recognizable music to sing about food or something silly. 

[Moranis]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

Well, it's not a straight replication of a painting.  They took something that was presumably in the public domain, and then added their artistic spin on it.  The ghost face Halloween mask has become iconic in its own right, above and beyond Munch's painting.

One of the silly things here?

Rozier ... trademarked his Scary Terry clothing line in July 2018.

Shouldn't his attorney mentioned that trademarking something that was already trademarked might pose a problem?

Put, I know very little about intellectual property law.  I know the general defenses tend to be fair use and/or parody.  I think there's at least good faith argument that this is parody.

Does responding to this count as studying for my law school finals?

I don’t know if we can say it’s a parody. Courts have been all over the place with it but it seems like his purpose is commercial gain, which isn’t going to help his case.

Ha. I still remember the parody hypotheticals from law school. One involved a local company making an ad playing off Mastercard’s “Priceless” campaign. Production values were poor, and it had some level of humor (intentional or not).  I thought it was clear infringement due to the financial gain aspect, and because the new company hadn’t really changed the formula, they just copied it in an inferior way.

But, my professor disagreed, haha. Her view of parody was expansive.

When Weird Al parodies a song, he's also doing it strictly for commercial gain too, right? Sometimes he'd use another artist's music to make fun of the artist (like Smells Like Nirvana) but more often he'd just use recognizable music to sing about food or something silly.

Weird Al almost always has permission and he always pays royalties

[jambr380]

According to McCann, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire, the New York-based store’s lawsuit alleges that Rozier’s clothing line will be confused with their own and the Celtics guard willingly tried to “dupe consumers into believing that they are buying goods legitimately associated with Fun World.”

I understand that in law things don't necessarily need to make sense, but that just seems like a REALLY weak claim.

Obviously if Fun World has the 'Ghostface Killer' mask trademarked, then things could get a little dicey in the Rozier camp, but it's not like they would even be an entity without the Scream franchise...and that was a long time ago. If anything, 'Scary Terry' has made them relevant again. Perhaps they are just using this as an opportunity for people to remember them.

[Sketch5]

I don't know. Can a company trademark something that is a replication of a hundred year old painting? If so can I go out and trademark pictures of many other paintings and then sue anyone who tries to make money of those paintings likeness?

Well, it's not a straight replication of a painting.  They took something that was presumably in the public domain, and then added their artistic spin on it.  The ghost face Halloween mask has become iconic in its own right, above and beyond Munch's painting.

One of the silly things here?

Rozier ... trademarked his Scary Terry clothing line in July 2018.

Shouldn't his attorney mentioned that trademarking something that was already trademarked might pose a problem?

Put, I know very little about intellectual property law.  I know the general defenses tend to be fair use and/or parody.  I think there's at least good faith argument that this is parody.

So theres this weird thing, where you can take an image and manipulate it 20% or more, and then it becomes yours. I've seen it all the time at shows. A bunch of digital artists take a photo of what ever popular character and add things to it like effects, and enlarge it and shrink it down, and some how it's legal. There was a case were an artist took a photographers images and blew it up, and then shrunk it back down and thats all it took to make it legal. It's a bit ridiculous, but it's why you can see a bunch of the same images on different things on those not so legit sites.

So as long as who ever is doing the merch for Terry is tweeking it enough, he should be fine.