Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The RNC agrees to remove the Republican Elephant from CafePress’ Endangered Species List
CafePress Blog ^ | 07/21/2008 | I.P. Freely

Posted on 07/21/2008 5:55:31 PM PDT by no-s

Jul 21st, 2008

The RNC agrees to remove the Republican Elephant from CafePress’ Endangered Species List - Grand Old Party Ensues!

Some of you may have seen some of the media coverage (maybe here, here, or here) regarding the Republican National Committee’s recent complaints about our shopkeepers’ use of the terms “GOP,” “Grand Old Party,” “Republican National Committee,” “RNC,” and various elephant designs.

To sum it up: back in February, the RNC demanded that CafePress “cease and desist from allowing vendors to utilize the federally registered trademarks of the RNC” and threatened legal action. While we’re open to working with trademark holders, something about forbidding our shopkeepers from using popular political symbols in the height of an exciting election season just didn’t seem right.

We figured that there’s got to be something in our Constitution that would guarantee our shopkeepers the right to speak openly about political issues…

The RNC wanted us to remove designs that were both supportive of Republicans and critical of Republicans. We wondered why they would ever object to our shopkeeper’s adorable design that featured a mommy elephant leading her tiny kid elephants, accompanied by the phrase “I’m raising my children RIGHT.” We did, however, understand why the RNC objected to the design at left…

(Last week, for probably the first time in CafePress history, the term “glory hole” was discussed in the CP Legal Department, thanks to a blog commenter.)

After this story hit the press, the RNC agreed to retract its threats of trademark litigation on the following terms:

  • CafePress will not remove any of the content the RNC complained about.
  • CafePress will send a notice to the shopkeepers whose content was listed in the RNC’s original complaint and whose designs consist solely of the precise trademarked elephant (displayed at right), the acronym GOP, or the trademarked elephant or acronym GOP with a border.
  • The notice will inform these shopkeepers about the RNC’s licensing procedure, and those particular shopkeepers will be required to use the RNC’s licensing process within a reasonable period of time.
  • CafePress will monitor our shopkeepers’ progress through the RNC’s licensing system, and CafePress reserves all of its rights in the event that our shopkeepers have problems obtaining licenses to use the RNC’s trademarks.

While we feel that the RNC’s registered trademarks are a vital part of the political discourse in this country, this compromise seemed reasonable. The vast majority of our shopkeepers’ designs are super expressive and consist of much more than just the trademarked elephant or the acronym GOP. We’ve got pink elephants, tattooed elephants, and an elephant that appears to have a real problem digesting donkeys.

We’re all happy that we were able to reach a friendly compromise with the RNC, but the intellectual property geeks in the CafePress Legal Department are somewhat disappointed that we did not have an opportunity to litigate the legal issues surrounding this dispute.

The RNC’s complaint raises interesting issues about the interaction between the First Amendment and trademark law. Now more than ever, folks are using T-shirts, bumper stickers, and buttons to express their political opinions. In Mattel v. MCA, the 9th Circuit held that certain trademarks can become such an important part of our culture and language that the First Amendment is implicated when a trademark holder attempts to quash expressive uses of the trademark. The court emphasized that “some trademarks enter our public discourse and become an integral part of our vocabulary . . . Trademarks often fill in gaps in our vocabulary and add a contemporary flavor to our expressions. Once imbued with such expressive value, the trademark becomes a word in our language and assumes a role outside the bounds of trademark law.” Mattel v. MCA, 296 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 2002).

We certainly believe that the RNC’s registered trademarks “assume a role outside the bounds of trademark law” because they are a vital part of this country’s political discourse. I mean, is there really any better way to express disdain for the Republican Party and Republicanism than this design?

So for now, the elephant is no longer in immediate danger of extinction on CafePress. And that is indeed cause for a grand ol’ party.

Thanks to all of our wonderfully creative and expressive shopkeepers, the bloggers, and tweet-happy elephant fans.

Also, a HUGE thank you to Paul Alan Levy, I am sure we would not have had such a quick and successful outcome without his superb representation and advocacy and the support of Public Citizen.

Whether proud Republican, or evolved Democrat, I think that anyone can agree that the RNC did the right thing.

Live long and prosper, elephant artists.

-by IPFreely (posted by admin due to IP Freely’s hectic schedule of fighting evil and otherwise making the world a better place)

Posted by admin | Permalink

|

Bookmark and Share

2 Responses to “The RNC agrees to remove the Republican Elephant from CafePress’ Endangered Species List - Grand Old Party Ensues!”

  1. on 21 Jul 2008 at 2:26 pm1Hands off our elephant: The sequel « citizenvox.org

    […] can read the specific terms of the agreement on CafePress’ blog. For more coverage, check out these posts on Wired and […]

  2. on 21 Jul 2008 at 3:46 pm2RNC Backs Down On Threatened Lawsuit Against CafePress | POD For You!

    […] Kudos to CafePress for sticking up for free political speech! The RNC has backed down from its claims of trademark violations. You can view the entire story at the CafePress blog. […]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Conspiracy; Politics
KEYWORDS: cafepress; copyright; elephant; intellectualproperty; republican; stealing; theives; trademark
What was the RNC thinking - are their lawyers a bunch of RATS?
1 posted on 07/21/2008 5:55:32 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: no-s
The RNC was undoubtedly trying to get folks to buy products from them to boost their coffers. I remember when political bumperstickers, hats, etc used to be given away. Now campaigns want folks to buy them.

Having said that, statements like "We figured that there’s got to be something in our Constitution that would guarantee our shopkeepers the right to speak openly about political issues…" are moronic. Anyone, even political parties, have the right to protect their intellectual property.

2 posted on 07/21/2008 6:01:02 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no-s
..clever marketing ploy, too! git 'em, while their hot!
3 posted on 07/21/2008 6:09:31 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (If you aren't "advancing" your arguments,your losing "the battle of Ideas"...libs,hates the facts 8^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter; no-s
Anyone, even political parties, have the right to protect their intellectual property. .

If you do not protect your copy righted material it becomes public domain and you loose all rights to control its use. It then can be used and abused by anyone. It is similar to squatters rights.

4 posted on 07/21/2008 6:14:39 PM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no-s

Does this headline actually make sense?


5 posted on 07/21/2008 6:16:44 PM PDT by stravinskyrules (Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's always by Villa-Lobos?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
Well, how the heck did the RNC expect this to play out, really? The cafepress blog was the least offensive smackdown of the lot.

IP law folks feel free to chime in (IANAL), but it seems there were two ways to respond in order to assert control of the trademark. Option 1 - send a cease and desist letter. Option 2 - acknowledge the usage as licensed. If this went to litigation it seems like all of the anti-GOP designs would have been protected speech and all of the pro-GOP designs("I'm raising my children right!") would have been removed.

A strict interpretation of the constitution would assert that protecting freedom of the press is more important than "intellectual property", considering the 1st amendment specifically asserts "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Article 1 section 8 may empower Congress to establish copyright, but the power granted must stop short of the 1st amendment.

6 posted on 07/21/2008 6:25:20 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stravinskyrules

I copied it out of the blog. That’s the rule.


7 posted on 07/21/2008 6:26:42 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: no-s

It isn’t a free speech issue unless vendors are giving away t-shirts for free..


8 posted on 07/21/2008 6:29:45 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stravinskyrules
Oh, does it make sense. Like I said earlier, it's the least offensive of the smackdowns.
9 posted on 07/21/2008 6:29:51 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: no-s
Article 1 section 8 may empower Congress to establish copyright, but the power granted must stop short of the 1st amendment.

The RNC request to not use their logos did not impose on anyone's free speech. In addition, the use of the logo implies an endorsement by the copyright holder.

10 posted on 07/21/2008 6:43:34 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
The RNC request to not use their logos did not impose on anyone's free speech.

Can you prove that? By the way, in case that was a weaselly turn of phrase there, we're talking about freedom of the press, not just freedom of speech. Should we be restrained from printing pro-GOP parody art while the DUmmies can print whatever obscene propaganda they please?

11 posted on 07/21/2008 7:01:23 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
Yeah, it's a marketing blog. If they had a choice between insightful and flippant I imagine flippant would take priority. Here's another "trendy" blog: GOP 'Caving' on Trademark Lawsuit Threats. And another (barely) "substantive" entry: RNC fights use of elephant logo.
12 posted on 07/21/2008 7:12:02 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson