Trademark clarification...

[Jannard]

I just got an email from one of our customers asking about a "RED gallery" inside his website. We have no problem at all (in fact we encourage it) to point out RED footage or rental of RED cameras inside a company (that doesn't have RED in their name). It supports the RED family of image-makers.

If you really want to help us get through this, or if there is the slightest question about use, we would love it if you would add...

"RED® is a trademark of RED Digital Cinema"

It isn't mandatory, but this helps us in the fight against competitive use.

Just so you know we aren't blowing smoke up your skirt... LG released the Scarlet TV even after asking us permission and us turning them down. I guess they thought they could just "take it". Litigation was initiated in Orange County. My bet is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Jim

[Don Woods]

Good for you Jim protect what is right

[Harky Jewett]

A friend and future Scarlet owner (the camera not the TV) saw the commercial for the TV awhile back and thought it might be for the camera, which I think is the definition of trademark infringement (can people confuse the offending product with the original...or something along those lines).

I'm sure there's no need to tell you, but I'd say Red has a solid case.

[Jannard]

We are hearing about some very creative alternatives to using RED in the name that still make reference to the program. Now is the time to put your thinking caps on... :-)

Jim

[Joseph Hutson]

Wow Sue 'em

[Craig Bowman]

...
If you really want to help us get through this, or if there is the slightest question about use, we would love it if you would add...

"RED® is a trademark of RED Digital Cinema"

It isn't mandatory, but this helps us in the fight against competitive use.

...

This works totally for me. Credit where credit is due!

[M Hsu]

jarRED ninjas.com

[Zakaree Sandberg]

jarRED ninjas.com

uhh.. no

[Darren Orange]

jarRED ninjas.com

I knew Jarred had his own clan of ninjas working for him! :ninja:

[Brook Willard]

Not these ninjas... :)

[Jeremy Neish]

The legal company name for my Red camera rental business is "Cherry Digital"... Cherry as in Red and Cherry as in the 1950's era version of 'leet.' We avoided the Red term intentionally.

[Joseph Hutson]

We are hearing about some very creative alternatives to using RED in the name that still make reference to the program. Now is the time to put your thinking caps on... :-)

Jim

3Kproductions.tv :)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

3Kproductions.tv :)

Joseph, I'm not targeting you specifically here. This is really directed at everyone who is rushing to put 2K, 3K 4K, RED, etc... into their own branding....

So what do you do in a few years when 3K becomes the de-facto standard for consumer crap? :usd:

I'm not sure I understand the need for people to brand their business efforts on something that is only now. Why not something that transcends multiple options or levels of production?

Just based on name, why should I visit 3kproductions when I could visit "4K In the Road Studios". ...Just sayin'

...the 4K in the road thing is just a hypothetical name. Although, someone out there probably has it.

[Joseph Hutson]

Joseph, I'm not targeting you specifically here. This is really directed at everyone who is rushing to put 2K, 3K 4K, RED, etc... into their own branding....

So what do you do in a few years when 3K becomes the de-facto standard for consumer crap? :usd:

I'm not sure I understand the need for people to brand their business efforts on something that is only now. Why not something that transcends multiple options or levels of production?

Just based on name, why should I visit 3kproductions when I could visit "4K In the Road Studios". ...Just sayin'

...the 4K in the road thing is just a hypothetical name. Although, someone out there probably has it.

nearsightedproductions.com is my official website, but 3Kproductions.tv will be easier for people to type in and remember.

[Stephen Williams]

Good for you Jim protect what is right

So what sre you going to do about redcamrentals.com?

[Michael Morlan]

nearsightedproductions.com is my official website, but 3Kproductions.tv will be easier for people to type in and remember.

Then you need to spend the marketing effort/dollars to make "Near Sighted" remembered by your clients. That is the essence of branding - with every contact with your client base, impress the name/logo/brand.

As an example, my last name is spelled rather oddly. "Morlan" rather than the more common "Moreland" or "Morland." If I want the production community to be able to find me, I have to impress my spelling in their memories. Google my name and I own the first page. Google the wrong spelling and I'm nowhere to be found. But, it is well worth the effort since my name is most representative of my work.

Of course, that could backfire, as it did with Edsel Ford. :)

Michael

[Steve Gibby]

I'm not sure I understand the need for people to brand their business efforts on something that is only now. Why not something that transcends multiple options or levels of production?

Very good point...

That in mind, I'm assuming 4k Ninjas will upgrade their name to 5k Ninjas or 5k & 4k Ninjas when EPIC ships :-)

[James Brundige]

Is Toys4Red OK? They're on your web banner, so I assume they are approved. I'm curious how to draw these distinctions. Not challenging you, just interested in this discussion.

[John Caballero]

How about becoming a great craftman and having your work and name speak for itself. If you create crap there is no marketing and publicity in the world that can save you. Just worry about using the Red technology and creating great work with it. Thats all.

[Pawel Achtel]

www.4k.com.au is available for takeover :greedy:

[LawrenceDinkins]

LG is a large company. If Jim pick a fight with LG, it might make a 4K or 8K camera and sell it for $5K and put RED out of business.
LG has the technology and know-how and finances and production facilities to do this. RED might be able to compete with Sony on price, but, RED cannot compete with LG on price or quality. I hope RED picking a fight with LG might not end up as Georgia which picked fight with Russia.
Just a thought.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Hmmm... I don't know, Lawrence... I doubt LG would create a superior product at less than 1/3 the price just because someone picks a fight with them. They are a big company, lots of engineers, manufacturing facilities, etc.. That doesn't mean they can pull off the same sort of coup that RED has.

Or another way to put it... I wouldn't expect such a thing from a company that can't even deliver a hybrid Blu-Ray + HD-DVD player that actually works as advertised. Although, neither can anyone else who has tried.

Besides, I doubt that "Scarlet" the line of LCD HDTVs and "Scarlet" the camera are truly in conflict. Just think of all the products out there that share a common name, but are simply different products. Take the word "Rogue" for example... It's not just a model of car by Nissan. It's also a legally trademarked brand for footwear, alcoholic beverages, yard equipment, pool filter and heater systems, entertainment software, air hoses and much, much more that I'm sure many of us are not even aware of.

RED can't compete with LG on quality? ...Ouch. Them's fightin' words right there.

[AntonyCASAFilms]

I have been using the names "Red Music" and "Musique Rouge" since about 1980. (Yes, I guess that makes me pretty old!)

I assume that your trademark doesn't operate retrospectively???

Or does it only apply to companies making video equipment and hardware?

I don't really want to be sued by you.... but on the other hand, I don't want to have to change my names after 28 years!!!

[Stephen Williams]

I have been using the names "Red Music" and "Musique Rouge" since about 1980. (Yes, I guess that makes me pretty old!)

I assume that your trademark doesn't operate retrospectively???

Or does it only apply to companies making video equipment and hardware?

I don't really want to be sued by you.... but on the other hand, I don't want to have to change my names after 28 years!!!

Hi,

If you have been using those names without being challenged for 28 years you have little to worry about.

Stephen

[Jason Sinclair]

What are the symptoms of sleep deprivation and high caffein use?

[Vince K]

What are the symptoms of sleep deprivation and high caffein use?

perhaps this?

[Vince K]

...or this...

[Mark Thorpe]

...or this...
hehehe, funny shit.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

perhaps this?

Dude...

Finner is going to be so pissed when he finds out you're posting half-naked pictures of his mom.

[Martin Weiss]

Finner is going to be so pissed when he finds out you're posting half-naked pictures of his mom.

... And I thought that was a cat...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Nah, the post before the cat. But I think you do know that. :)

[Peter Lyons Collister, ASC]

I was hoping to have some RED Digital Cinema logo'd bike jerseys made up for a bunch of us but I will defer to the wisdom of Jim & Ted.....

[GPSchnyder]

Is digitalredvolution okay as the name for my blog about the Scarlet? I don't say that I own RED or something like this. I just am a Fanboy trying to show other guys what the Scarlet is.

Hope I won't be sued, please talk to me before, we can arrange something I think ;-)

But to be honest I don't think this will be a problem at all. :w00t:

-george

[Johann Schulz]

I think to act just like you're looking for any other clearance, but this time send it to RED for approval, or how else will you know 100% what's what? ...Other than the obvious infringments, which should be obvious. Hmmm. Okay. You never want to sink a hard (worked) on venture due to technicalities....

Obviously lots of questions are popping up - they'll have to be dealt with....

I hope it doesn't 'infringe' too much on some other RED saints' duties.

BTW: Pics worth a thousand words!

[VerascopePix]

Some people are confusing domain names with trademarks. You can have a RED-based domain name. There are plenty of domain names that use trademarked words in the middle. Avid2FCP.com comes to mind.

It will be interesting to see how far RED (the camera) can extend the use of their trademark as it concerns RED (the TV).

Before RED (the camera) there was RED (Boris' FX package). These are similar in nature to the camera, and yet Boris hasn't kept RED (the camera) from using their trademark that I've ever heard about.

There are plenty of BIG companies with identical trademarks. Think United (airlines) or United (van lines). Avid (editing gear) and Avid (medicine). There are probably a lot of these with names that indicate superlatives (like Pinnacle or Acme or Ajax. There are some that are based on names (Harris).

Most of them are in totally different fields, but the camera, the effects package and the TV are all very similar. If anyone was entitled to it out of the three, it wouldn't be the camera. And I'd say that pushing a claim against the TV wouldn't be too smart since you could lose your trademark to Boris by trying to extend the reach of the trademark too far.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, though I have shot them for TV.

[Joseph Hutson]

Of course, I am not a lawyer, though I have shot them for TV.

Yeah, I am sure the lawyers getting shot up for a TV special, must have been entertaining to some people.

[Joseph Hutson]

Though I am sure they have one, I am just curious as to where Boris (Red) has their trademark registered?

[Dylan Reeve]

Some people are confusing domain names with trademarks. You can have a RED-based domain name. There are plenty of domain names that use trademarked words in the middle. Avid2FCP.com comes to mind.

While domain names aren't specifically related to trademark, appeals can be lodged through ICANN and the trademark owner is often successful there.


It will be interesting to see how far RED (the camera) can extend the use of their trademark as it concerns RED (the TV).

I think there is some overlap on the categories in which they are registered. Jim said that LG approached them for an okay, and was denied, but went ahead anyway - not a great move really. Although super tricky is that LG registered their mark a week before RED did.

[Jannard]

While domain names aren't specifically related to trademark, appeals can be lodged through ICANN and the trademark owner is often successful there.



I think there is some overlap on the categories in which they are registered. Jim said that LG approached them for an okay, and was denied, but went ahead anyway - not a great move really. Although super tricky is that LG registered their mark a week before RED did.

They actually registered their mark AFTER we did in the US and most (all but two) countries. And they acknowledged reading reduser. Just so you know...

Jim

[Dylan Reeve]

They actually registered their mark AFTER we did in the US and most (all but two) countries. And they acknowledged reading reduser. Just so you know...

Jim

Sorry, I was just going by what I saw on the USPTO site - Them on Jan 31, and you on Feb 6 - but that was just for the 'Scarlet' mark - I saw there were a number of associated marks, which I didn't check.

If LG is still reading - I think I'll be spending my money (when I have some) on a Samsung anyway. :)

[Jannard]

Trust me... if they had filed 1st there would be no lawsuit.

Jim

[Dylan Reeve]

Trust me... if they had filed 1st there would be no lawsuit.

Jim

I'll buy you a beer the next time you're in Auckland, and you can tell me all about it :)

[Johann Schulz]

I knew nothing about the "behind-the-scenes", but when I first saw the Scarlet TV ads by LG coming out of nowhere and dealing with IMAGE QUALITY, I thought that's too close to a name already plastered all over the internet in long lines of folks in anticipation of the 'mysterious camera' (substitute the mysterious LG woman action-hero!) for months, if not a year before hand.... That's got to help your case, Mr. Jannard. Your openess leaves a 'papertrail' that's easy to follow. Combined with the info you're stating about LG's contacting you, etc., if I was a lawyer, I'd take your case for free, (until we reach a settlement, of course. And I'll slave for an EPIC!;>)

[Joseph Hutson]

Trust me... if they had filed 1st there would be no lawsuit.

Jim

So there HAS been a lawsuit filed on LG? Not surprised, except surprised that LG pursued the name Scarlet knowing full well that you had it first.

[Chris Pickle]

So there HAS been a lawsuit filed on LG? Not surprised, except surprised that LG pursued the name Scarlet knowing full well that you had it first.

Companies do this all the time. Apple tried to say with a straight face that their iPhone would not be confused with an already registered trademark for iPhone in Canada, which was owned by a company that provided VOIP.

Their argument didn't fly and they made "arrangements" with the Canadian trademark owner.

I'm sure that LG has enough lawyers to at least make a case that their Scarlet TV will not be confused with Red's Scarlet camera. (I'm not saying they'll be correct)

This kind of law is not black and white--it's what you can convince a court into believing.

[dalen johnson]

LG is a large company. If Jim pick a fight with LG, it might make a 4K or 8K camera and sell it for $5K and put RED out of business.
LG has the technology and know-how and finances and production facilities to do this. RED might be able to compete with Sony on price, but, RED cannot compete with LG on price or quality. I hope RED picking a fight with LG might not end up as Georgia which picked fight with Russia.
Just a thought.

I would never buy an LG product - never saw them as quality for some reason.
So if they came out with a RED camera, wouldnt even think twice about it.

Peace

dAlen

[Cory Schulthies]

LG is a large company. If Jim pick a fight with LG, it might make a 4K or 8K camera and sell it for $5K and put RED out of business.
LG has the technology and know-how and finances and production facilities to do this. RED might be able to compete with Sony on price, but, RED cannot compete with LG on price or quality. I hope RED picking a fight with LG might not end up as Georgia which picked fight with Russia.
Just a thought.

LG doesn't have the people, they are behind already. They are way behind on the learning curve. RED has first mover advantage. Making digital cinema cameras is not one of LG's core competencies. If anything trying to compete with RED would hurt LG more than RED. Also, I doubt they could undercut the RED; have you seen the price of some of RED One's true competitors? The red one is very inexpensive as these cameras go.

[Jason Sinclair]

You've got something greater than a trademark Jim, don't lose sight of that.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Does "Toys 4 RED bother" RED by any chance?

Or it doesn't because the name makes it clear that it's something for RED and not something by RED.

Just curious...

[Manfred Lopez]

It looks like Engadget doesn't think that Red has a case:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/08/18/red-brings-the-trademark-pain-against-lgs-scarlet-hdtv/

[Joseph Hutson]

Apparently, engadget doesn't believe Soccermoms will buy a "pro-grade camera".

"we think RED's going to have a tough time selling a judge on the likelihood of confusion between a consumer-oriented HDTV and a decidedly pro-grade camera"

[Sarah C.]

Hi Guys,

Dunno if this helps or throws a monkey wrench in.. but I think I've read elsewhere that you cannot trademark a name with a common word. Such as say.. "Orange Crush" is original, but just calling it "Orange" is not. There have been other "Red"'s used.. like "Big Red", or "Red Vines".. etc. As in the case of Apple from Apple, Inc. ..? Maybe that's where Red has some common ground?

~Sarah

Here's some text I found on the web..

What can be trademarked?

Trademark registration can be granted on distinctive names, logos and slogans. Marks may be inherently distinctive because they are original and unique, or may become a strong mark over time or as a result of a marketing campaign. Inherently distinctive marks may be:

* suggestive or evocative marks - made-up words that suggest or evoke qualities of the product or service (Slim-Fast, Expedia)
* coined or fanciful marks - arbitrary made-up words (Exxon, Kleenex, Viagra)
* arbitrary marks - words that are surprising or unexpected in the context of their use (Sprite soft drink, Amazon online bookstore)
* unique logos or symbols - distinctive typography or artwork (McDonald's golden arches, the Playboy bunny, IBM's logo)

Marks that describe a feature of the product, or that are based upon a person's name or geographical location, are generally unprotectable. However, once the owner can demonstrate public awareness of the mark through advertising, product sales or other means, then it develops a "secondary meaning" and may be registered. Examples include:

* people's names (Ben & Jerry's, Calvin Klein, Procter & Gamble)
* geographic terms (Bank of America, New York Life)
* words that describe the product or service - (Burger King, Jiffy Lube)
* slogans - "Just do it" (Nike), "We do chicken right" (KFC), "Quality is job 1" (Ford)[

What is non-trademarkable?

Several types of terms are not protected under copyright law and can not be registered:

* marks confusingly similar to existing marks - A mark is not subject to protection if it is too similar in spelling, sound or appearance and is used for similar goods or services (a new sportswear company could not call itself Nikee).
* generic terms - A mark can not be protected if it is simply the name of the goods themselves (a soft drink called Pop).
* weak marks that have not achieved secondary meaning - The owner must demonstrate that the public recognizes the mark as unique to their product (Joe's Bar would not qualify).
* abandoned trademarks - If the mark is no longer in use and the owner has indicated intent not to resume use, it is not protected.
* functional features - A functional element of a product or its packaging, as opposed to a decorative element. Note that this may be protectable under a design patent.
* titles of literary or artistic works - Titles of books, movies and music can not generally be trademarked (or copyrighted). It can be if it is used to brand a series of books (Chicken Soup for the Soul), or related products (Star Wars toys).

[Manfred Lopez]

So I guess its a race to see who can establish a secondary meaning first for the word Scarlet: Red or LG. I wonder if it will come down to who has more advertising dollars.

Um, by the way, LilRed, you'll have to change your screen name. It has Red in it with a capital 'R'. :)


EDIT:

By the way, 'TheThe' is a trademarked screen name of 'Double The Industries'. Any use of such wording by any other entity that is not me is hereby strictly forbidden on this or any other forum. In fact, just to play it safe, I recommend that all of you stop using the word 'The' altogether, you know, just to be on the safe side and not risk drawing the ire of 'Double The Industries'. So no more The, please.

[Mike Prevette]

US and International copyright law states that you have to "defend" your copyright or you lose it. The way companies prove that they are defending their copyright is by bringing cases upon infringer's. Hence why you see so many superficial nonsensical suits. It's all a very standard aspect of copyright law.

[Sarah C.]

TheThe.. guess we'll have to shoot my friend's horse named "LilRed" ..or not.. I think she was born before this camera was!

Little Red Riding Hood.. yeah, we can do away with her too. :bleh:

~S

[Roberto B]

They actually registered their mark AFTER we did in the US and most (all but two) countries. And they acknowledged reading reduser. Just so you know...

Jim:) :)

[Roberto B]

It looks like Engadget doesn't think that Red has a case:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/08/18/red-brings-the-trademark-pain-against-lgs-scarlet-hdtv/

"Honestly, we think RED's going to have a tough time selling a judge on the likelihood of confusion between a consumer-oriented HDTV and a decidedly pro-grade camera.."

just the newest marketing plot..

[AntonyCASAFilms]

By the way, 'TheThe' is a trademarked screen name of 'Double The Industries'. Any use of such wording by any other entity that is not me is hereby strictly forbidden on this or any other forum.

Matt Johnson thanks you for your clarification. He has now stopped performing with his band! :-)

[Brent J. Craig]

Trademarks are not copyrights. Copyrights are not trademarks. If you own the copyright on something you do not own a trademark. The article LilRed quotes loses all credibility by using the two terms interchangeably.

[Daniel Sheehy]

Is digitalredvolution okay as the name for my blog about the Scarlet? I don't say that I own RED or something like this. I just am a Fanboy trying to show other guys what the Scarlet is.

Hope I won't be sued, please talk to me before, we can arrange something I think ;-)

But to be honest I don't think this will be a problem at all. :w00t:

-george
It's called fair use. Your blog should be fine.

[Manfred Lopez]

Matt Johnson thanks you for your clarification. He has now stopped performing with his band! :-)

Ha!! Matt Johnson is in clear violation of our TheThe Trademark. He founded his band in 1977, while our TheThe comes from our appropriation... er, acquisition of the "The The" from the 1965 movie 'Attack of The The Eye Creatures". We win! :whistling: Please make all trademark violation monies payable in Drakmas.

[Sarah C.]

Trademarks are not copyrights. Copyrights are not trademarks. If you own the copyright on something you do not own a trademark. The article LilRed quotes loses all credibility by using the two terms interchangeably.

Stands to reason that you shouldn't try to trademark something you can't even own a copyright to? (I'm not an atty.. just a lenser)

~Sarah

[Jarred Land]

time to shut er down :)