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.
It seems like it comes down to, does referring to the fictional Bandersnatch book inside the episode as a "CYOA" book run afoul because it's not a real CYOA book IRL, or is it fine because everyone understands "CYOA" as shorthand for a genre, like Kleenex is shorthand for a tissue nowadays.
Nazer was discussing Anheuser-Busch's irritation that the Paramount movie Flight, starring Denzel Washington as an alcoholic pilot, showed his character drinking Budweiser, among other liquor brands. None of them paid for that product integration, nor did they give permission or license it. Again, that's not necessary for a filmmaker to use a product.
On an episode of The Jay and Tony Show Show, Jay and Tony talked about having to blur logos on one of the Gigolos cast members' underwear: "We had to blur those Louis Vuitton logos … on his little short underwear because they could have seen it and said, You're fucking with our brand … because now people associate our brand with his penis."
Louis Vuitton might have said that, but it's not against the law to wear a brand's underwear in a reality TV show.
And sometimes companies are litigious: Emerson Electric sued NBC over an episode of Heroes in which a character had her hand mangled in a garbage disposal with its brand name. The company later dropped its lawsuit.
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.They're suing because their trademark "Choose Your Own Adventure" was used without permission after Netflix failed to get that permission.
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.
I wondered why Netflix themselves seemed to avoid ever actually calling it a CYOA story. Now I get why.
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.
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.
IIRC all the CYOA stuff I read growing up was pretty hardcore. Maybe those were knockoffs.
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.IIRC all the CYOA stuff I read growing up was pretty hardcore. Maybe those were knockoffs.
Did it end with you getting eaten by a giant wolf?I remember one of the good endings in one was me ripping my own eye out and throwing it in a well to gain infinite wisdom. There was like a 50/50 chance any choice would lead to death.
Maybe they can't because Choose Your Own Adventure began in 1979: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Choose_Your_Own_Adventure_books
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:
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.
AhhThey say in the movie itself that the Bandersnatch video game is based on a CYOA book.... That's probably where the problem lies.
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.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?
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.
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?
IIRC all the CYOA stuff I read growing up was pretty hardcore. Maybe those were knockoffs.
IIRC all the CYOA stuff I read growing up was pretty hardcore. Maybe those were knockoffs.
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.Yeah, but you can mention or show trademarked stuff in film and TV all you want. That doesn't run afoul of copyright law. (Adam Conover from Adam Ruins Everything recently tweeted about this.) You just can't use it marketing, so as long as Netflix didn't do that, they should be fine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.