You can copyright a duck? That ought to be a surprise to God.
Shall they next sue the makers of Cold Duck?
A few years ago Starbuck’s - claiming a copyright violation - sued a tiny Greek Orthodox monastery for selling a “Christmas blend” coffee. Yes, Starbucks actually thought “Christmas blend” was something they could have proprietary rights to. They lost, and looked like silly, small-minded men in the process.
No, you can’t copyright a duck... but you could trademark a specific duck.
Daffy Duck, Donald Duck, Oregon Ducks, Duck Commander.
I can understand Duckhorn’s worry about being overshadowed by a more famous and popular Duck, but they can’t own the exclusive use of the word.
Probably not, but no doubt they get their lawyers to bullyrag any startup that uses a duck in its branding. Most will be cowed into giving in, not wanting the expense of a legal battle.
No surprise to God. Monsanto and their ilk have been trying to copyright our food supply for years.
Didn’t Microsoft try to copyright the “@”?
You can copyright a duck? That ought to be a surprise to God.
In this case, there are 17 trademark registrations for wine owned by companies other than Duckhorn, so it’s a crowded field, and Dock Commander is just another different “duck” wine.
Duckhorn loses.