Yahoo Serious Fights Yahoo! trademark 350
fsck writes "Australian actor Yahoo Serious is fighting Internet portal Yahoo! for the trademark to the word Yahoo, registered with the Australian Trade Marks Office in August. Yahoo! was founded in 1994, whereas Yahoo Serious changed his name by deed poll in 1980. It sounds as though Mr Serious is, among other things, tired of receiving any more misdirected Yahoo! snail mail." The levels of comedy to this are astounding.
is this for real? (Score:1)
sometimes, it seems, the ridiculous is more real than the fantasy.
wow.
great way to start my morning.... with a cup of coffee snarfed out my nose and into my lap. thanks, slashdot.
Re:is this for real? (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:is this for real? (Score:3, Funny)
Nope, just a Yahoo.
whatever (Score:1, Redundant)
there are no supid questions only stupid people!
Re:whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Course, the fact that he's not exactly the best known actor ever may prevent most people from being confused since they're unlikely to have heard of him. But since IANAL, I'm going to leave that discussion to the court to decide.
And laugh if he wins.
It's just a shame he didn't change his name to Micro Soft.
Re:whatever (Score:2, Funny)
Speaking of Microsoft, there should be a class action lawsuit by everyone named "Bob" against Microsoft, for trying to appropriate the name, and throw in a defamation suit, too.
Re:whatever (Score:2)
and got the idea for the company name from that.
very hard to prove, of course. completely speculative. but definitely possible.
Even I have heard of Young Einstien, for example. and I don't get out enough.
Registered in August (Score:1)
But now it seems, he thinks to have found a Source of money, so he sues Yahoo!...
IANAL (Score:1)
Re:IANAL (Score:2, Informative)
Silly! (Score:1)
Re:Silly! (Score:1)
Re:Silly! (Score:1)
Re:Silly! (Score:2)
Re:Silly! (Score:2)
And since an author's copyright expires 70 (IIRC) years after his death the word is now in the public domain and should remain there.
Re:Silly! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yahoo (Score:2, Troll)
What's next? (Score:2)
Robert De Niro did the same thing (Score:2, Informative)
Trademarked names (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yahoo?? (Score:1)
Won't happen... (Score:1)
Re:Won't happen... (Score:1)
Is he? (Score:1)
Origins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely the great great great grand nice (twice removed on her mother's side) could have some contention about this?
Gullivers Travels (Score:2)
Re:Origins? (Score:2)
Name Copyright... (Score:1)
Yahoo (the portal) will have to find another name for this part of its activity...
+
"Freeman said registration of a celebrity name as a trademark had already been done by names such as Australian cricketing legend Sir Donald Bradman, actress Farrah Fawcett and Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith"
OK for Farrah, but who the hell is this Sir Bradman, who is Dick (sic) Smith ?
And who is this "a case brought by actor and director Yahoo Serious "
He's know to have played in "Young Einstein"...
After such a feat, I would have changed my name to John Smith and gone into reclusion... What a name !
Re:Name Copyright... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Gasp! Having to ask who Sir Bradman is? Why, just Australia's answer to Babe Ruth is all. He's the most famous Australian cricketer there ever was.
Dick Smith is another (locally) famous Australian. He started a chain of electronics stores much like Tandy and Radio Shack. Later on he branched out into exploring, and seemingly travelling everywhere in a helicopter.
Re:Name Copyright... (Score:5, Informative)
Who is Sir Donald Bradman Indeed! Ok It may just be that im australian, but Sir Donald Bradman is one of the Australias most famous cricketers. Born in 1908 in SA (south australia) , with a test average of 99.94, and in all the tests in which he played, in he scored a total of close to 7000 runs.
Sadly Sir Don passed away in august 2000. he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia. one of may great australians. but then I guess most Americans wouldnt know of him, let alone Cricket.
Bradman article (Score:2)
Re:Name Copyright... (Score:2)
February 25 2001, actually. Now who is the "Babe Ruth" I keep hearing about?
I can see it now (Score:1)
Seriously (no pun intended), this has been talked about and been on the books for ages... he was never a tall poppy, or we would have carved him up ages ago.
Seriously Amused (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that you supposedly can't trademark a proper name, and since Yahoo had changed his proper name -to- Yahoo ages ago, he's got a very good point. This one'll be fun to see the results of.
Re:Seriously Amused (Score:2)
In the United States there is a trucking company w/the same name as me. I am quite proud to see their name on the side of the trucks when I go by. I feel special.
I still think that anyone who does this is looking to make money.
Re:Seriously Amused (Score:2)
In that case, I need to find me a lawyer, because the Miller Brewing Company has deep pockets.
Sincerely, Josh Miller
Re:Seriously Amused (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do people keep getting this idea from? McDonald's. Wendy's. Samuel Adams. Warner Brothers. Ford. Chef Boyardee (yes, he was a real person, although he spelled his name differently). The list goes on...
Everybody named Wendy does not get to sue the fast food chain just because they happen to share the name. An unrelated Mr. Sam Adams does not get to put the beer company out of business. Trademarks are only infringed when there is the potential for 'consumer confusion', and trust me that Mr. Serious is the only one confused about this. He's probably doing this just for the publicity, unless he has a very stupid lawyer.
Re:Seriously Amused (Score:2)
Actor's get jobs because people recognize their name. I don't know about Australia, but in the USA, the actor's guild ensures that stage names are unique. That is, if your real name is Paul Newman and you become a professional actor, you've got to adopt a different stage name. So an actor's name is his trademark. And I don't think it is necessary to register it.
You are right that legally trademarks are only infringed when there is potential for confusion. Java the computer compiler and The Java Shop restaurant would not be infringing
So I can well understand why Mr. Serious wants to make sure it's understood from the start that he was there first.
Here's how they should settle it... (Score:1)
No way! (Score:1, Troll)
Timing (Score:1)
Besides, everyone know's that the company appends an exclamation mark ('!') at the end of Yahoo, so it's a completely different name!
Comedy? (Score:1)
Yahoos. (Score:1)
Re:Yahoos. (Score:2)
In any event I believe you are correct that it would be Swift who has the ultimate claim to the word Yahoo. If it were coined in the last 70 years,that is. I think Swift and his heirs are just out of luck today.
Yahoo Serious already lost the fight. In August! (Score:5, Informative)
From the Australian Trade Marks Office:
Yahoo Serious v Yahoo! Inc [2001] ATMO 74 (13 August 2001)
The evidence shows that Mr Serious does not use his name, Yahoo Serious, or his forename, to distinguish goods or services. It is true that he writes, directs and produces motion picture films in which he stars; however, it is not apparent in the evidence that either of the words `Yahoo Serious', or the word `Yahoo' are used as a trade mark in relation to the films. The closest that I can find in the evidence to use of any sign that might be as a trade mark is the repeated use of the words, a `Serious Production' or `Serious Entertainment' on promotional material associated with the motion pictures. However, this use is obviously of no assistance to Mr Serious as the opposed trade mark is the word YAHOO! and I therefore do not have to decide whether this use of the word SERIOUS is as a trade mark.
Oh dear so 'Serious' might be trademarked ? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't want to play as 'Slightly Serious Sam' or 'Mostly Harmless Sam'
Dammit I wanna be Serious Sam and I want some serious fragging now.....
Re:Yahoo Serious already lost the fight. In August (Score:5, Informative)
First, the story is that Yahoo Serious is appealing the August decision.
Secondly, Yahoo! the company has registered a trademark in Australia for use in, amongst other things, "Entertainment services including television programmes". On the face of it, he may have a case that using "Yahoo!" as a trademark in the entertainment industry would be "confusingly similar" to his name, even though he has not trademarked his name.
What's in a name? You'd be amazed! (Score:2)
Which is enough. Dunno about the USA, but here in Oz you can use your own name (all or a subset) as if it were the name of a company or a registered business name. This makes your name IP, kind of, no trademark required. If your name were also Yahoo, say, Mr Yahoo Eight One Two Three Ninc, you would also have a claim if Yahoo tried to register a name in any of your fields of endeavour. However, neither you nor Mr Serious could claim against each other. This prevents a million Johns from suing each other.
This raises an interesting legal question: could a Yahoo representative change his name by deed poll (to, say, Mr Yahoo Representative) and peppercorn-employ Yahoo!-the-company to present a website in his own name? Offhand (and BTW, IANAL), I can't think of an argument against it.
sesame street... (Score:4, Funny)
It's worse than that (Score:2)
Obligatory Simpsons refernces.
Marquee: "Yahoo Serious Film Festival"
Lisa: I know those words, but that sign makes no sense
Missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo is moving to register the trademark now, they applied for it in August. Being an actor, it means that if Yahoo Serious was to release merchandise etc. under the name Yahoo, Yahoo! inc. would probably sue him.
This wasn't a problem before they applied for the trademark.
How would you guys feel if I tried to register the trademark "Linus Torvalds" tomorrow?
I think that Mr. Serious has a serious point.
(pardon the pun
How can you get confused? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo! (with the exclamation mark, which they have always used even if their users don't) is associated with a Web portal, and has been for years, while Yahoo Serious (with the last name) has always been associated with comedy (well, loosely). "Yahoo" is a common word, but they're used differently in each case, so there's no confusion.
If you ask me, this is just a cheap publicity ploy by Yahoo Serious to get his name back in the public eye, since his acting ability is incapable of doing so. The dispute is a non-issue, and will be treated as such by the courts.
Re:How can you get confused? (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, making computers that suck is another matter
(Actually (IMHO), the VAX computers of the time were damn good machines. Sears sold the VAX vacuum cleaners here and they really sucked, which is a good thing for a vacuum cleaner)
Re:That sounds like Apple Computers v Apple Record (Score:3, Informative)
It is at these fringe overlaps that people get into trouble. As others pointed out, Yahoo! Movies is a good example.
No, no one is going to confuse a bad actor and a web portal, but people can confuse Yahoo! Movies with Yahoo Serious Movies.
Re:How can you get confused? (Score:2)
Yahoo Serious Film Festival - I recognize those words but that sentance makes no sense.
Re:Missing the point. (Score:4, Informative)
However, it is not axiomatic that you have a (trademark) right to your own name. Ever heard of "Taylor Wine", a fairly large upstate-NY winery that markets inexpensive table wine? It was a family-owned business. In the late 70s, two brothers that ran the business had a falling out. One brother decided to run his own business, and incorporated "Taylor" into the name.
Much sueing occurred -- and the court ruled that the original Taylor could prevent the new Taylor from using the FAMILY NAME in his business (and, presumably, anyone else who wanted to use "Taylor" in relationship to a winery). The fact that it was his name didn't carry any weight. I believe there have been several other similar cases, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.
FYI, if you want to know the outcome -- Taylor #2 renamed his winery "Bully Hill" (I believe the original winery was on a hill...), and continued to do business. I left upstate NY in '90, so I don't know how much success they've achieved. Neither wines were particularly good
Now, I believe Linus holds the trademark for "Linux". Could you open a company called "Linus Torvalds Operating Systems, Inc" ? Maybe.
Re:Missing the point. (Score:2)
The Gallo winery, as most wine drinkers know, expanded rapidly and is now the largest winery in the U.S., and one of the largest in the world. Well, in the early 80's the third brother, Joseph Gallo, began selling his dairy products directly to consumers in grocery stores. There was cheeses, milk, butter, and cremes (but no wine), and all were marketed under the name "Gallo Farms". When the Gallo Winery heard of this, they quickly demanded the name be changed. Cheese, they reasoned, is commonly consumed with wine...therefore creating the possibility of confusion.
Joseph Gallo tried to comply at first, changing the company name to "Joseph Gallo Farms" to add some differentiation, but that wasn't good enough. The winery wanted him to desist from using his last name altogether. Joseph Gallo refused and his brothers dragged him to court for trademark infringement (Gallo Winery is still a privately held corporation entirely controlled by the Gallo family). Joseph Gallo had a serious problem with this, and claimed that the law shouldn't be able to prevent him from using his last name. After all, Gallo in Italian was like MacDonald in Scotland...a very common name.
Joseph Gallo ended up losing his shirt. Not only did the judge order him not to use his own name, but he was also slapped with a large compensatory and punitive fine because of his belligerance. Of course, the judgement could have had something to do with the fact that the Gallo winery helped to finance the elections of nearly every local official before the early 90's, and the fact that the Gallo's power over the local economy was greatly feared by most of Stanislaus Counties government workers. NOBODY was going to risk pissing the Gallo's off, so poor Joseph really didn't stand a chance.
Nothing here to see (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, but makes this interesting at all is the sheer absurdity of his claims.
If Yahoo! had been named "Yahoo Serious!" then he'd have a case, it happens plenty of actors have strange sounding first names.
I for one, has never heard about the actor Yahoo Serious, and if he is worried that people might mistake Yahoo! for himself, then he is seriously deluded and overrates his own fame.Besides, yahoo is a very old and common outburst, and they are not even in the same business.
Re:Nothing here to see (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing here to see (Score:2)
If this occurs, Yahoo (Serious) could change his name to
Weepee Hooray
I don't see how this applies (Score:2, Insightful)
-Shade
Well he shouldn't have attracted Yahoo's attention (Score:1, Informative)
Chrysiliou said his client, who changed his name by deed poll in 1980, was widely known and had been extensively publicised as Yahoo.
What this article isn't mentioning is that, now that Serious has gotten Yahoo! involved in litigation as a publicity stunt, he IS violating their copyright by using Yahoo!'s fame to get his own name in the newspaper.
I wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo! seized royalties from this guy's sales of previous and future work.
Don't poke the lion, boy.
Re:Well he shouldn't have attracted Yahoo's attent (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo! seized royalties from this guy's sales of previous and future work.
Too easy. Way too easy.
Abott and Costello, forgive me. (Score:5, Funny)
C: Oh yeah, well you better have a really good name for it. Something to stick in people heads.
A: Oh I do, I'm really excited about it.
C: What is it?
A: Yahoo!
C: So you're excited, so what's the name.
A: No, that's the name.
C: What's the name?
A: Yahoo!
C: I can't tell it's exciting, what's the name!
A: I just told you the name.
C: Why can't you just tell me the name.
A: Yahoo!
C: You can't be serious.
A: I'm not, that's someone else.
C: That's not what I'm asking!
Re:Abott and Costello, forgive me. (Score:2, Interesting)
A tough decision (Score:1)
Keep in mind, this is the same man who has been bringing us fine cinema such as "Young Einstein" for many many years.
On the other hand, Yahoo! provides an outstanding method of locating pr0n.
I guess the courts will just have to decide this one.
apology (Score:4, Funny)
Re:apology (Score:2)
Okay, the comment was funny. But when I noticed the moderation, insightful, my ribs began to hurt.
Re:apology (Score:2)
On behalf of my fellow Australians I would like to apologize for the crimes committed against comedy by Yahoo Serious.
Now can you apologize for Mel Gibson's Hamlet and Paul Hogan's... um... everything?
Re:apology (Score:2)
Paul Hogan's... um... everything?
Actually, the first Crocodile Dundee movie was pretty damn funny. If only he had stopped with the first one... it's been so beaten into the ground that everyone has forgotten that the first movie was good.
Re:apology (Score:2)
Re:apology (Score:2, Funny)
And in reciprocation, we Americans would like to apologize for Carrot Top.
Well, actually not so much apologize as fire him from a cannon into a low earth orbit without a space suit.
Well if Yahoo can do it ... (Score:1)
Two different trademarks? (Score:1)
It seems to me that a trademark on a name doesn't tradmark everything remotely similar. Yahoo! has punctuation, Yahoo Serious is a weird Australian violin-playing genius. I don't expect to see too much confusion...
Re:Two different trademarks? (Score:4, Funny)
the words "Yahho Serious" and "genius" shoud never be uttered in the same sentance.
Praise the underdog! (Score:1)
If Yahoo Serious wins, it will prove that, despite all that has happened to take our rights away, and all that has been done to make copyright law the tool of corporate evil, the underdog can still use copyright law to defend himself from evil corporations. It may, in fact, prove that copyright law is the tool of the common man (if it wins), despite corruption by corporate interests.
If it loses, this case will provide further evidence that copyright laws are unjust, and should be ignored at will. If it wins, this case will prove that copyright laws are just, and can still be used by ordinary people to defend themselves against corporate titans.
The fact that this case is even being fought is proof that copyright laws are able to be turned to the hands of the fading middle classes who are the heart and soul of the American Dream. The fact that it has come to the point that a man must defend his name against corporate intrusions is proof that corporations have twisted copyright law to their own ends, so that it no longer serves the purpose of good.
John Boy (Score:2, Funny)
Make the punishment fit the crime. (Score:2, Funny)
Copyright Eggplants? no way! (Score:2)
Eggplants! [eggforge.net]
Ace905
[President] The Eggplant Coders Association
Names (Score:3, Insightful)
Did Yahoo Serios pull his current name out of thin air, i.e. was is completely originaly and never been said before? Nope, that word has been around a lot longer than he's been using it.
He's been in more recent movies than Young Einstein but when was the last time you heard his name mentioned? During promos for Young Einstein.
Does he have a chance in hell of winning? Nope.
Its about TRADEMARK not domains (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you can't steal scott.com. But they can't TRADEMARK "scott" either. Yahoo! applied for a trademark in the ENTERTAINMENT FIELD in Australia in August. That trademark would prohibit Mr. Serious (who changed his name in 1980) from being able to market himself or his production company, his films or any other products
Mr. Serious is NOT attempting to hijack yahoo.com, and he could probably care less about domains, so long as he is able to continue to use his own domain yahooserious.com, and whatever the australian one is.
Re:Names (Score:2, Informative)
(I knew wbout this because of the old "friend of a friend")
Given the dot bomb economy.... (Score:5, Funny)
Blatant censorship (Score:2)
Agree, but ``OhNo!'' or ``Oops!'' or ``Aaaaaaargh!'' would probably fit through more filters. OTOH, Microsoft might then sue ``the new Yahoo!'' for that on behalf of their users, who frequently employ all of the proposed replacement names in earnest...
H&M and the Logg family (Score:2)
The Logg family sued, and won. H&M had to change the name of the label to "L.O.G.G. (Label Of Graded Goods)".
So really, this is no joke - it's serious (no pun intended).
Get your facts straight... (Score:2, Informative)
fsck, actually, according to the webpage, the LAWSUIT between Yahoo Serious and Yahoo! was filed in August, not the trademark by Yahoo! which was originally filed in 1996. Yahoo Serious may lose since he is supposed to (under trademark law) oppose any filing well before the 4 year period. At least, that's the way it works in the U.S... im sure australia has a similar case.
Re:Get your facts straight... (Score:3, Informative)
I just hate... (Score:2, Funny)
Mostly funny, but kinda serious too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yahoo!'s trademark gives them the necessary leverage needed to keep others from associating their name with products/services/activities/etc that have nothing to do with Yahoo!. As a result, Yahoo Serious (who apparently still has a career in Australia) runs the risk of legal troubles if he uses his legal first name to promote his movies. Imagine him making a movie that has a corresponding movie poster with wording like "Yahoo Presents...[movie title]" or a title like (in class Earnest fashion) "Yahoo Goes To The Outback." Yahoo! could, if they so desired, sue Yahoo Serious (or, more likely, whatever production company made the film) for trademark violations, since their trademarked name was used in the promotion of a product they had nothing to do with.
To put a spin on an anology someone else used on this subject, having the name Scott does not, indeed, give you the right to own scott.com. But if Scott Tissue got a trademark on the name "Scott", they could possibly sue you for making a homepage titled "Scott's Web Site", simply on the implication that Scott Tissue might be associated with the site due to the use of a trademarked name.
I still think Yahoo Serious will lose this legal battle, but it still kind of stinks that companies can trademark such phrases (instead of something a bit more obvious, like a logo).
Re:Mostly funny, but kinda serious too... (Score:2)
I suppose I'd have to be more educated as that what Yahoo!'s trademark covers before I can make an opinion as to whether or not Yahoo Serious has a shot in hell of winning a legal battle. Assuming this isn't just a publicity stunt, I'd hope his lawyers have informed him of such specifics. If that's true, then I'd guess that Yahoo!'s trademark extends to the entertainment markets.
Re:Mostly funny, but kinda serious too... (Score:2)
All puns aside (Score:2)
Young Einstein was, as anyone who recalls when it made the brief tour of U.S. theaters, a major non-event, the proverbial lead balloon. Plugged as a huge success in Australia and the next really mindboggling thing to make your eyes spin and brain explode, it was advertised strongly. The reviews were humbling and the attentance moreso. I did see it and though it was, "OK".
Interesting to see he's still up to his odd perspective and doing things, but expect little enthusiasm for his work in the U.S.
As for copyright infringement, IMHO & IANAL, he's waited a pretty darn long time. Usually to be victorious in such cases, one must react quickly.
be fair (Score:2)
Re:be fair (Score:2)
No, it wasn't meant to be a joke. I'm just an idiot with a bad memory. :)
Lisa Simpson said it all (Score:3, Funny)
Lisa Simpson: "I know those words, but that sentance makes no sense to me!"
Why Mr. Serious changed his name (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm... (Score:2)
Incidentally, great film.
Kelly: "Dog, go get dan. GO GET DAN!"
Dog: "Cornflakes."
Kelly: "Stupid Dog!"
Oh well. (Score:2)
"Yahoo!" should change their name to "Oh well..."
listed on www.yahoo.com (Score:2, Funny)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Actors_and_Act
In other words, "I need money". Just because he was outdated when long before the internet got cool.
Re:Another Concern (Score:2)
So, if Dick Smith were an American actor, yes, any future theoretical Dick Smiths would have to register professionally under a different name.