It's amazing how something like this can get trademark. I thought of that popular YT channel trying to trademark "React". It's stupid in both cases.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Netflix Sued by “Choose Your Own Adventure” Over Bandersnatch
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
I'm not an expert, but I don't believe that would run afoul of anything. Whether it is a real book or not is irrelevant. All trademarks do is protect your mark from being used by another company to sell their products. It does NOT mean that all mentions or uses of that product must be sanctioned by the trademark holder. Even when they are being used in a less-than-positive light. Some examples:
Source: https://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/2017/05/why-are-logos-blurred-on-reality-tv-shows/
Ironically, everyone assumes that brands must give permission to use their marks in TV and films. But the reason studios do it is not because it is illegal to show it without permission, it's because they don't want to get hit with frivolous lawsuits, like this one.
You can't use the words choose your own adventure in any media without their permission? I get how trademarks work, but generally their strict about trademarking a sentence like that.
Still absurd.
Indeed, but contextually, this is a movie about choosing your own adventure and they have a character imply that it was part of that book series by mentioning the trademark, so it isn't just a case of saying those words, there's a lot of contextual implications. You can mention trademarks just fine in media without permission, but you have to be careful what you are implying.
On the one hand, Netflix could sneeze $25mil and not even notice. However, I hope they let this go to court. There's no way a company should be able to say that their copyright extends from the marketing of the product to the concept of being able to actually pick your path in a story.
Truth be told, the best thing that could happen to that company is Bandersnatch, since it's not like a buyers market on kids wanting to enjoy that type of book. Really they should be paying Netflix money for giving people a reason to think about their stuff again.
Truth be told, the best thing that could happen to that company is Bandersnatch, since it's not like a buyers market on kids wanting to enjoy that type of book. Really they should be paying Netflix money for giving people a reason to think about their stuff again.
Ironically, if the CYOA people failed to energetically pursue any and every possible misuse of their trademark, their property in the mark would diminish and eventually die. So while it's still a viable trademark that they feel is bringing in good money, they must pursue every single potential infringement. Those who hold a trademark must never sleep.
I didn't read the lawsuit or see Bandersnatch, but if Netflix used the trademarked term CYOA to essentially sell a CYOA type story, then this may not be frivolous at all.
It's further compounded by the fact that they knew of the mark and tried to license it. Under the Lanham Act this show wilful intent and awareness of the mark. That can impose 3x damages.
The devil is in the details and without a further study of the facts and the complaint, saying that it is frivolous is ... frivolous.
It's further compounded by the fact that they knew of the mark and tried to license it. Under the Lanham Act this show wilful intent and awareness of the mark. That can impose 3x damages.
The devil is in the details and without a further study of the facts and the complaint, saying that it is frivolous is ... frivolous.
No. Goosebumps was RL Stine and Scholastic. CYOA is owned by Bantam.
But they didn't use the term to sell the movie. The lawsuit's only complaint is that the trademark was mentioned in the movie. But that is not trademark infringement. The lawsuit, as it stands, is frivolous.
Netflix didn't even market the movie as having multiple paths until the day it came out. And even then it just called it "interactive".
Even though the film used the phrase "choose your own adventure" directly, I'm not sure they have a good case. It is not against the law to use a trademarked word or phrase in a piece of fiction. And in the context of the film, the character is using that as a genericized term of art to describe the type of book it is, not even actually saying it is part of the official Choose Your Own Adventure series. He's essentially using it in the way that someone would call a facial tissue a "Kleenex." Using that term to market the product would be different, but as far as I know Netflix hasn't done that.
As gutshot stated above in their great post, people can get away with a lot more than you think with trademarks and copyright in fiction, but they generally don't because it can end up being more trouble than it's worth. It's easier to get an editor to blur something just in case rather than deal with any potential implications that come later on. Even a frivolous lawsuit that ultimately gets dropped can cost a company more than they want to spend.
As gutshot stated above in their great post, people can get away with a lot more than you think with trademarks and copyright in fiction, but they generally don't because it can end up being more trouble than it's worth. It's easier to get an editor to blur something just in case rather than deal with any potential implications that come later on. Even a frivolous lawsuit that ultimately gets dropped can cost a company more than they want to spend.
Last edited:
I have a fear of undersea creatures with large gaping mouths because of a CYOA book (Under the Sea). You get eaten by a Grouper.
Maybe they can't because Choose Your Own Adventure began in 1979: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Choose_Your_Own_Adventure_books
But the examples you site show products being used in a realistic light. But if the Bandersnatch is a magical (unrealistic) item that causes pain to the characters and is referred to as CYOA, shouldn't they need to get permission for that?
Even if it's a longshot, there's enough interesting angles to this (seeking permission, using the term in the movie) that this should go to trial. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about it, do you guys own stake in Netflix?
Do they have a case if Netflix never said "choose your own adventure"?
Ahh
I would think this would actually make their case weaker. Trademark infringement very often revolves around confusing consumers. I would think consumers would be less likely to think that a Choose Your Own Adventure book would turn evil and cause them to go crazy than the fact that their garbage disposal could mangle their hand.
So many dumb lawsuits these days. I don't agree with any of them either. Everyone wants that fat lawsuit money!
Siri, what is a descriptive trade mark and is it valid?
Siri, if you use a term in a manner that does not affect the origin function of the mark can it constitute infringement?
Siri, if you use a term in a manner that does not affect the origin function of the mark can it constitute infringement?
Last edited:
You can apply for a trademark in a specific field. The classic example is Apple, the music organisation started by The Beatles, and Apple, the computer organisation started by three ne'er-do-wells in Cupertino. The negotiation seems to have been resolved by now.
Where are people in this thread seeing that Netflix marketed Bandersnatch on the CYOA trademark? The article is short on information (specifically that the main character in the film says "choose your own adventure"), but Netflix's marketing isn't really a component here.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 2016 attempt to license the CYOA trademark (note: not copyright) was so they could market their existing children's programming as CYOA. If this goes to court, I wouldn't be surprised if CYOA wins--their trademark isn't so old that it could be considered a generic term, right?
I wouldn't be surprised if the 2016 attempt to license the CYOA trademark (note: not copyright) was so they could market their existing children's programming as CYOA. If this goes to court, I wouldn't be surprised if CYOA wins--their trademark isn't so old that it could be considered a generic term, right?
Except trademark infringement requires a company using an unlicensed trademark to sell product. You can't file for trademark infringement when all that happened was a fictional character in a fictional show mentioned your trademark.
There is no way Chooseco would win in court, they are just hoping for a settlement from Netflix.
I definitely read a young Indiana Jones cyoa where the wrong choices resulted in death.
Same here. I felt 90% of them had horror style "bad" endings most of the time.
Pretty much this. This is one of those things I "knew" as a kid then eventually became fuzzy on because of TV blurring or otherwise editing out brands on their shows. Once I took a media law class in college one of the sections was specifically about product advertisements, copyrights and trademarks and how they can or cannot be used.
The usual reasons things get blurred is specifically to avoid stupid lawsuits form companies even though it's free advertising. If someone on a reality show is wearing an Under Armor shirt and they're not a sponsor, the other sponsor(s) could pull funding of their own products or, worse, someone acts like an idiot and tarnishes the brand ("I'd never wear that brand because Johnny Bananas does!"). I suspect the former is a lot more common than the latter because at least in that case it can be thrown out in court.
My favorite was Statue of Liberty Adventure. It kind of unsettled me a bit how you died in some of them and may have contributed to my longstanding fear of heights.The best CYOA
Trademark law has a rule where you can't simply trademark descriptive names/sentences, i.e. marks that just tell you what they're about. In the event that your trademark would be accepted by the IP office anyway, it's harder to defend from imitators than a completely original/made-up/unrelated mark like Apple. "Apple", as a word, doesn't describe computers.
Marks like "Choose your own Adventure" are really annoying though, because they don't technically describe a specific media (e.g. books, movies...) or product, yet they're pretty much a concept descriptor. Not only that, but it's become a well-established genre unto itself, not unlike "Reacts" are kind of a subgenre of YouTube videos. I'm sure there would be a case for destituting the CYOA mark on the grounds that it's very much descriptive of a concept that's arguably generic nowadays, but at the same time, the mark rides the line. I have a feeling it would be more clear-cut if the CYAO mark was instead called "Branching path stories". Now, that's unambiguously descriptive if you ask me.
Besides, one would have to check how adamantly the owners of CYOA have been defending their trademark all these years. That would also factor in. You're supposed to defend your brand lest it become generic if it's so ubiquitous that people start using it willy-nilly everywhere for any media with a similar concept... Which, arguably, is already the case in English-speaking cultures, right (I don't live in an English country)?
Yeah, the specific way Black Mirror referred to CYOA, and the fact that Netflix asked for Chooseco's permission unsuccessfully in the past, might be the key to this case. If it were up to me, I'd be tempted to just say fuck to Chooseco because everyone says CYOA being convinced it's just a generic genre name, but it's not as cut and dry as that.