why is hailey bieber calling her new beauty brand RHODES & not BIEBER BEAUTY as originally planned? well for one thing, @uspto found a likelihood of confusion with her husband's JUSTIN BIEBER line. i talked w/ @pagesix:
hailey appended a consent & coexistence agreement to her office action response, which was supposed to indicate justin's consent to her brand name, belief it wouldn't cause confusion, & commitment to address any that arises-- but she forgot to get her husband to sign it. #oops
uspto also deemed "bieber" primarily merely a surname. hailey argued it was rare, wouldn't be perceived as a surname, and...umm, this.
"the 'bieber beauty' mark creates an aura. the mark evokes thoughts of a look, lifestyle, or image: in which mrs. bieber gracefully walks." wut
thx @TimberlakeLaw for helping me make sense of a final office action in response to an unsigned coexistence agreement. (he says if not signed, it's not an agreement--just some words on paper her lawyers submitted.) tmep calls a consent agreement "but 1 factor" in LOC analysis.
just noticed my typo & it’s probably because my bff is @rhodeseducation (rhodes with an s)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
the decision in the @TheJimCornette v. @StaySickGRAVER trademark & right of publicity lawsuit came out last month and it is a treat. big thanks to @ericgoldman for sending it my way. here's one of the shirts at issue (thread):
g-raver is a deathmatch wrestler; he wrestles others w/ "improvised weapons, e.g. light tubes, barbed wire, thumbtacks, panes of glass, & weed whackers...graver’s signature weapons are tattoo needles."
he did not bring any of those items to court to defend this suit afaik tho.
cornette is a wrestling commentator w/ 2 popular podcasts. the court calls him a "celebrity" w/ a "professional persona."
cases about the wrestling world are always fascinating b/c the parties are not exactly people but not purely fictional characters (see hulk hogan).
a band called lady antebellum recently realized its name was racist & announced it would go by lady A instead. but another artist has performed as lady A for decades. today, the band sued. i'll try to explain the suit & break down some of the trademark issues in this thread.
1st let me say i agree w/ those calling out the band for its faux activism & hypocrisy. @thejournalista, @ira, @matthewacherry, @IWriteAllDay_ , & @yashar all have excellent threads on what's wrong w/ the band effectively silencing a black artist in the name of anti-racism.
i focus on the TM aspect to clarify the legal issues, not to defend the band's actions. in the end, the band may be legally well-situated but morally wrong. & painting themselves as victims is a particularly bad look. (see @pitchfork quotes: YIKES.)