SBS v Crikey: game on
|
Earlier this month Crikey received a legal threat from the other national broadcaster SBS. Why? Because we dared to tag our coverage of soccer, sorry, football, with three little words: “the world game”. Crikey operated under the assumption that the term “the world game” was used by lots of people to describe soccer, because use of the word “soccer” enrages fans, and use of the word “football” got it confused with, well, football. We respect legitimate pursuit of trademarks, but we also operated under the assumption that words are words, and as such, anyone is free to use them. And why wouldn’t we? SBS doesn’t have the trademark to use these common words. After taking legal advice, Crikey put it in the politest possible way: we told SBS to get stuffed. We then received this aggressive follow up letter (Worthy of the Name letter (16-12-09) [pdf]) from a Sydney lawyer.
Seems SBS is willing to spend taxpayer funds on pursuing us and others for daring to classify, order and categorise our content with “their” words. And how much more will it spend fighting for something that we have on good authority they’re unlikely to get? SBS claims that Crikey is profiting from the term “the world game” by selling our tea towels, socks and other paraphernalia off the back of their brand. To which we say, get your hand off it, SBS, we don’t need your piffling slogan, we’ve got Kevin Rudd’s pets. Which is why we issue this challenge. SBS: reveal your reports and correspondence with the trademark office. We’re interested to see if there’s any hope in hell of you ever getting the monopolistic use of these common words. Crikey will be keeping our power dry instead of expending time and funds on fighting a fellow media company over an issue as ridiculous as this, especially since we hardly ever use the tag (not “blog” as SBS has called it in one piece of correspondence.) So you get your way SBS — here, have “the world game” back. We’ve taken down our tag and replaced it with this:
Click on the tag above to read all about the game that Les Murray once referred to as *censored* but that you won’t be reading about on our website because SBS doesn’t like to share. |
|
|
|
24 Comments
SBS- corporate scum
I’m calling my lawyer, I’m sure I’ve referred to that game as Soccer before.
Crikey could send SBS an invoice for promoting the use of their phrase. I would think 10 cents a click would be reasonable.
About time Crikey sent a letter to Steve Irwin’s estate ….
SBS = Silly Bloody Station.
Lethal injection time for Management & their lawers
It does look a little like corporate madness to me with vague memories 6 months as a trademarks examiner way back in 1987.
Is there evidence around the place of common usage by soccer fans here and around the world, the earlier the better, of this common usage?
Even if not, there is from memory under the old legislation a fatal objection to a tm registration whereby words of common meaning that relate to the product or service cannot be grabbed exclusively for that one seller.
A trite example is a water seller can’t trademark “water”. A soccer ‘seller’ can’t trademark “soccer”. It follows that a seller of a world game, can’t trade mark a “World Game”. The simple explanation behind the legal regime is that that would be a restraint of trade and against our commercial capitalist culture to promote competition.
Trademarks have a purpose to identify true source of trader. Of course in this world of branding corporates traditionally have always tried to get this mark as close psychologically to the nature of the product to build recognition and marketing power. But it’s the regulator who has to protect all traders from cramping the style of legitimate competitors. Here Crikey is a legitimate competitor for selling coverage of one of several “world games” along with I suppose chess. (I’m having trouble thinking of one other genuinely ubiquitous game. Even swimming won’t apply in every country?)
Now the fact SBS arguably lighted on a neat original phrase to describe what they sell doesn’t impress me if it’s the use of the Kings English. It’s still language from the common lexicon to desrcibe what is in fact a World Game.
(The argument about whether it is misleading or deceptive as to origin of goods or service seems to me a misconceived line of criticism. More likely it should never have gained registration at all and the trademarks examiner or supervisor should have had their backside kicked. How to correct the trademark register - I have no clue now.)
Also if it’s still at application level that full registration it might be more vulnerable?
Nice try by the lawyers of Soccer Bloody Soccer.
“Get stuffed” is the apposite response.
If they want a slogan they can have this one free: “Soccer, who the fuck cares?”
The sadness of this issue is that a media organisation such as SBS, which was once committed to openness and opportunity, has become so commercially focused that such basic principles count for little nowadays.
Having worked there is senior positions I know they will argue that a trademark (if “The World Game” is such and belongs to SBS) is a valuable commodity. Like any big corporation, it won’t let others use it for free, not even another media organisation such as Crikey. The irony is that Crikey still attempts to practice the traditional values of bold and irreverent journalism on a shoestring budget, a claim SBS might once have managed to sustain. No longer, of course; nowadays it is not just a corporation - it is corporate in the meanest sense.
As I say, sad really.
Tom - “I’m having trouble thinking of one other genuinely ubiquitous game.”
Litigation?
What the hell is their problem? If you want to watch 90 minutes of inactivity interspersed with the occasional academy award-winning dive on free-to-air, they are effectively a monopoly. Unless you want to watch the women’s game on the ABC, which frankly is just a bit too rugged for the pretty boys in The Global Game.
If it wasn’t for RockWiz and Top Gear I’d delete SBS from my channels list.
Oh FFS… storm in a tea-cup. And an excuse for the SBS/football-bashers to come out of the woodwork.
this is crazy…..
The SBS, or should I say Les Murray, have proven to be very very sensitive!
Some of the select phrases my old Dad used to use to describe soccer would be fitting descriptions of SBS’ posture on this. But, @Martin C. Jones, they’re a little, erm … Kingswood Country-ish and most of us have matured a little since then. Even my Dad. Meanwhile, SBS is regressing by moving away from their “Special” and wonderfully cultural broadcasting into being FTA TV’s version of triple-j. Too bad.
How about soccer, (“the game no longer described at Crikey as the world game but still so at SBS”). That oughta get around it don’t ya think!
Why did you roll over so quickly???????
The have a cat in hell’s chance of winning the exclusive use of the phrase ‘the world game’.
These silly buggers (and it’s not just SBS), need a legal kick in the bollocks! It is utterly absurd to attempt ‘exclusive’ use of such general phrases.
‘Sydney lawyer’…………….., tha’s a prat! (No wonder we were called ‘men of straw’).
I use the phrase ‘World Football’ it’s an ugly phrase apt for the game where acting qualifications are as important as physical ability to kick a ball and swan dive like an olympic diver.
Elan - that’s explained in the other article here. Fighting a legal battle has more to do with financial resources than being right at law.
See also the Australian on the financial cost of telling the truth about Captain Dragan’s war crimes.
James I can’t get the ‘Mail because I don’t subscribe.
As a lawyer I’m only too well aware of cost! BUT: the alternative is to allow this trend to continue. The alternative is economic rationalist justice (ergo: none at all).
This trend of legal bullying over spurious issues is increasing dramatically. If it goes unchallenged;-it will thrive.
My legal specialty has little to do with ‘fat-cat’ lawyers. I’ve NO desire to feed their coffers, but I HATE-absolutely HATE to see these asinine twots attempting to intimidate others into not using…, in one case their own name!!
What’s next? We can’t say “no worries” / “she’ll be right” ?? Not so outlandish a concept! It’s only a matter of time!
The law governing copyright needs a real going over. OR it needs someone to kick the legal shit out of the toe-rags who do this.
Isn’t “Crikey” a common word used in the Australian vernacular for ages? A quick look at the IP Australia website and I note that this is trademarked heavily (especially by Australia Zoo), but also by the publishers of this electronic media outlet. I do not doubt that if started a blog using the “Crikey” moniker I would receive cease and desist letters, and rightly so, since the Crikey trademark for electronic media would not be mine.
While I do have some issues with the trademark evaluation system (seems to depend on who you get to evaluate the trademark as to whether you get it or not, thus making it very subjective), SBS have trademarked “The World Game” and have a right to protect it. So “game on” or not, you are not in the right on this occasion otherwise why would you drop the term from your site?
It’s a pity Crikey didn’t make the other article openly available in place of this one. I’ll breach copyright and reprint a part of it here.
SBS v Crikey: SBS pursues legal action over “the world game”, Crikey 21 Dec, item# 17:
You have to wonder at the “advice ” they are receiving on this. If I was SBS I’d be asking for my money back from the team that thought they could get away with trying to pull this legal stunt thereby gouging both management and taxpayer in one fell swoop. Nice money if you can get it!
Don’t know who the “team” is but that’s also a story worth pursuing more than the “tag” takedown.
Thanks for that, James.
Tag….schmag/Trademark..schtrademark. It is all an excuse to dominate and control. The Steve Irwin example is a good one to show how bloody ludicrous this situation is getting.
The legislation defining the ‘ownership’ of words or phrases needs to be clarified so that this bullshit can be stopped or stemmed.
It will of course be a cold day in hell before that happens.
Perhaps it is too much of a risk for Crikey to have ‘called’ SBS on this. To wait for them it instigate proceedings? This isn’t my field, but it would I think be up to SBS to then prove their ‘exclusive’ right to such a generalised phrase.
I believe they will lose. Still, the law IS a bit of a Rubiks Cube. Not worth the risk perhaps?
However, there will come a time…and I hope that SBS is on the receiving end.
The World’s Game?
Craig Foster has the right, it would seem, to use the term out side of SBS.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/only-the-world-game-can-unite-all-four-corners-of-the-globe-20091125-jl3v.html