RSS
Twitter
Dear 50 Cent: Did I Just Violate Your Trademark?
from the morons-in-a-hurry-eating-a-chalupa dept
A bunch of readers submitted the story about the ongoing lawsuit between the rapper 50 Cent and Taco Bell. Taco Bell started running an ad campaign, where they jokingly sent a public letter to 50 Cent asking him to change his name to 79 Cent, 89 Cent or 99 Cent to help publicize a Taco Bell promotional menu. 50 Cent then sued, claiming a trademark violation. This case fascinates me for a few reasons, as it raises some interesting issues. First, you can sort of see where 50 Cent is coming from -- as Taco Bell is using his brand in commerce without his permission -- but I'd argue that it's pretty clear that 50 Cent isn't involved and hasn't endorsed the product (and, yes, even a "moron in a hurry" would hopefully recognize that). Since it's just an "open letter" to the rapper, rather than anything involving him, it should be clear that he's not necessarily involved. If any commercial website (say, a blog) wrote an "open letter" to a celebrity, would that be a violation of publicity rights or trademark? Unlikely. So why would it be so in this case? Even more interesting, of course, is that the lawsuit only served to draw a lot more attention to this whole thing, meaning that Taco Bell is probably pretty pleased about it. Of course, if I were Taco Bell, I might think about adding a single item to the menu that actually costs 50 cents... After all, you can't protect a price.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
New menu item
Chicken Butt...50¢
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
50¢ ass blaster taco
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
That's all of thier tacos
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Link?
Anyone got a link to the commercial?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why bother? You just don't get it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Are you talking to me?
Who's not bothering what, and who doesn't get what?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Are you talking to me?
Clearly he's talking about you and your lack of understanding.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In this case I would say 50 Cent should win.
Taco Bell is profiting (or trying to) of his name (trademark).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
So all public letters to all celebrities are illegal? Or do you mean that public letters are OK as long as they're kept private?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
With a name like Canada, I wouldn't be on 50's side of this case if.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
So can the US Mint sue this Mr. 50 Cent for rebranding himself after legal tender? Or Maybe the JFK estate as he clearly is 50¢.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mmm... Taco Bell
I am so hungry for my "Fourth Meal".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mmm... Taco Bell
Heh...
around here Taco Bell closes at 11 p.m. They still have the "4th meal" decals, but they close before midnight...
Also, 79,89,99 items are marked up 10 cents, so it's 79, 89, 1.09. They still have the 89 and 99 decals on the windows, but (of course) no franchise-provided 1.09 decal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yes
You are violating my trademark. You'll be hearing from my lawyer
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The thing is, it isn't strictly a public letter, it's an advertising campaign. They're trying to pull a fast one by associating 50 cent with them.
I agree with Johnny Canada, I think this fails the moron in a hurry test.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Celebrities have "special" rights to their name/image/reputation
You can't sell something using a celebrity's name unless the celebrity agrees. It's a form of trademark infringement.
In 50 Cent's case, it's an even more obvious violation, since 50 Cent is a trademark instead of his actual name.
Taco Bell is clearly in the wrong here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
On the contrary
Taco Bell should advertise LOTS of 50 cent items, but then explain in their advertising that they are having to charge 99 cents (almost double) because they are having to pay royalties to "his highness" without naming him out of fear that he will sue them for stealing HIS name.
What a crock. Certainly the judge will throw this out of his court and award attorney fees to the restaurant. Mr. Fifty Cents voluntarily assumed that name knowing that it is used routinely throughout the country as a PRICE, and that it is reasonable to expect that some folks will confuse HIM with the price because he was stupid enough to pick that name.
By the way, did the restaurant use his image? If they did, then they might lose.
Thank God the Rev. Billy Sunday never sued all those competing churches who plastered his last name all over their signs and billboards promoting their services.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Two things
1) 50 Cent has brought several ridiculous IP lawsuits before. This lawsuit is just the latest.
2) You wrote "After all, you can't protect a price." Of course you know that EVERYTHING is now protected by IP law, including prices. See CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999). http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/197_F3d_1256.htm
Eric.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Two things
You wrote "After all, you can't protect a price." Of course you know that EVERYTHING is now protected by IP law, including prices. See CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999). http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/197_F3d_1256.htm
While I disagree with the court's decision in the case you linked, it did not establish that prices could be copyrighted. The Red Book's prices are essentially opinions expressed as a dollar figure, not facts. So while the provided case may apply to other pricing guides, it would not apply to a restaurant's menu.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Two things
...plus, couldn't you argue that a price is a fact? I mean, it's true. Fact: If you do you have $.79 + tax then you cannot have Y.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fifty Cent Taco Tuesdays
Sounds like that could work.. ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Seems like infringement
This definitely seems like legitimate infringement to me. Unlike a blogger writing a funny article, this is directly tying the celebrity's name to a product promotion. And, yes, I think a moron in a hurry could assume that 50 cent gave his endorsement. Generally, when a celebrity is attached to a commercial for a product, that is an endorsement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I think this is a double reverse Streisand Effect. Taco Bell knew they would be sued and knew about the Striesand effect so they purposely used the name (which by the way isn't a NAME, its a TRADEMARK). Fifty will lose, Taco Bell will win in the case and win at the cash register.
At least Fifty has removed any doubt that he might be endorsing Taco Bell. If there was ever any chance for a future endorsement deal its gone now.
Congratulations on limiting your earning potential.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You Stupid! So 50 cent somehow will limit the earning potential of an entire corporation? Bahahahahaha! You fool!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Time to run to the border for "50¢ Deflationary Badonkadonk Burritos"!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i'd turn the tables
if i were taco bell, i'd do a commercial like this: a bunch of taco bell ad guys sitting around talking about different experimental food items they could sell for 50 cents, like toothpaste burritos, pine-flavored tacos, like that. then the boss ad-guy could walk down the line pointing at each item saying, "this 50 cent thing? sucks. this 50 cent thing? no good. this 50 cent thing? awful!"
then taco bell should just pay up cuz fiddy needs mo bling.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i have to disagree here, they are using him/his image to promote there product with out his permission, there has to be a law against that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Bob"
Anyone remember Microsoft Bob? Well my name is Bob and I sued MS for use of my name - AND I WAS SUCCESSFUL!! Guess how much the settlement was for?!? That's right! 50 cent!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: "Bob"
You'll be hearing from my lawyers, Bob.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: "Bob"
Pbbt. But will the lawyers have grumbling stomachs, or just be grumbling? Maybe they want something from the delicious 79¢ promotional menu.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
New menu item, 50 Cent Black Eyed Peas with Eminems and Vanilla Ice-cream for desert.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
nice, nice baby.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Empty Paper Bag- $.50
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Morons in general
I know this is off topic, but tailoring our laws to "morons" only encourages the production of more morons.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
50-Cent probably is afraid that being associated with Taco Bell will shoot his career down just like MC Hammer's. Parachute pants, anyone?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They'll settle
Taco Bell has been sued before over their advertising. They've basically caved every time, even when the lawsuit was stupid. They'll cave this time, too, I bet.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment