‘FUCK the LAPD' Shirt Maker's Entire Shop Sold Out After Cops Threaten Him
‘FUCK the LAPD' Shirt Maker's Entire Shop Sold Out After Cops Threaten Him
"Streisand Effect in effect," designer says after their legal response went viral.
The creator of a “FUCK the LAPD” shirt sold out not only his entire stock of that shirt but also sold out many of his other designs after the Los Angeles Police Department Foundation made an intellectual property threat against them that claimed they owned the letters ‘LAPD.’
You're viewing a single thread.
I’m all for anarchy, and IANAL, but being that there is an active trademark for word LAPD in the clothing industry, I could see the City of Los Angelos (the actual trademark holders) having a leg to stand on. Note that the address on the trademark is not the address of the LAPF.
Here’s the thing about Trademarks though:
Trademarks exist to protect consumers from confusion in the market, NOT primarily to protect the owner of the trademark.
So, like, a restaurant calling themselves McDonald’s could reasonably be assumed to be operated by the McDonald’s Corporation.
This makes trademarks distinct from both patents and copyright.
Do you honestly believe a rational consumer would mistake this design for one originating from the LAPD?
https://academic.oup.com/book/41769/chapter-abstract/354401357?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
‘’’
European Trade Mark Law Kur Annette and Martin Senftleben Contents Contents Search in this book CHAPTER 3 Rationales of Trade Mark Protection Get access Arrow Kur Annette, Martin Senftleben https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199680443.003.0002 Pages 1–26 Published: March 2017 Annotate icon Annotate Cite Icon Cite Permissions Icon Permissions Share Icon Share Abstract Although trade mark law is generally regarded as forming part of the larger body of intellectual property, the protection mechanism underlying its functioning is distinct from other intellectual property rights. Patents, copyright, or design rights award creative or innovative achievements with a limited period of market exclusivity thus creating artificial scarcity of the respective commodities. This grants the proprietor of such rights the possibility to raise prices above the marginal costs so as to recoup the investments made. Whether and to what extent that strategy is successful and even allows gaining a premium is determined by the market. Trade mark law coincides with that scheme insofar as it also engages market forces to determine commercial gains or losses. However, instead of creating artificial exclusivity of the goods or services offered, it provides a communication channel for entrepreneurs, so as to identify the goods or services originating from their business, distinguish them from competing goods, and transport product-related messages they want to convey to their customers. This, by reflex, provides information to the market, guiding consumer choice towards goods satisfying their demands, and helping to avoid those they do not want, at minimal search costs (see paragraph 1.08 et seq.). Thus, instead of restricting competition on the production level, trade marks are designed as an enabling tool without which competition in today’s mass markets would not function at all. ‘’’
This, and the dumbass lawyer representing the LAPF sent a DMCA takedown, explicitly calling it copyright infringement, which is most certainly is not
Great read, thanks for sharing.
FYI there's a link in that article that goes to the initial, and much more brief, walkthrough of the original letter, and it's comically short response.
That was a great read. Thank you.
DMCA is only copyright so it had to be a copyright claim. You could probably argue that this claim was in bad faith, but that's a lot of work to actually prove.
Read the 4 page document
No seriously, read it, it's fucking hilarious.
I'm almost afraid to ask you to explain how you might have formed such a belief, but feel free to take a shot at it.
In a footnote on page 3
Mike Dunford, Cola's lawyer, is fantastic. He has a Twitch channel (questauthority) if you want to hear more from him.
Why wasn't this good enough to protect The South Butt? Or was it just a legal might makes right kind of thing
Doesn't seem like its the same type of situation
Can explain why you think its different? They both seem like they are obvious parodies and should fall under similar rulings/precedents.
Permanently Deleted
This might actually fall under 1st amendment and parody laws
This is exactly the case.
100%. Also, fuck IP.
I'm conflicted about this. I think some smaller companies that individuals should have the ability to protect their intellectual property but at the same time I think it's far too long for mega corporations to own IP.
It's not something we can do overnight. It would require a strong culture of patronage.
I agree. I think one thing we can all agree on is that patents that used any, even a cent of public funds cannot be granted a patent. Also at the same time, our government should have their own drug research center that creates drugs that are available for all humanity to use.
Especially the one in the thumbnail, given that it parodies the Lakers logo as well.