Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
TNF sues teen over "the south butt"
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
Page 1 of 2.  1  2   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
Dec 15, 2009
So, apparently, TNF has joined the ranks of Metallica in getting their undies in a bunch over some teen that still lives with their mom.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/a...

They're suing over copyright infringement because the boy is selling stuff that says "the south butt" and has an altered TNF logo. I think the clothing is obnoxious, but suing the kids seems a bit beneath them, if you ask me.

What's your thoughts?

Evan
Evan1984
Joined Aug 15, 2007
77 points
Dec 15, 2009
Hello, old friend.
Sorry, whether you like the clothing or not, little Jimmy needs to think of something original. TNF has the right to sue to protect its image, logo, and intellectual property. Even parodies must seek legal permission to use well-known, copyrighted, corporate logos from their owners - it appears little Jimmy did not do this.

PS: - Oh yeah, Jimmy is 18 years old...an adult, at least legally.
DaveB
Joined Feb 4, 2007
1,119 points
Site Landlord
Dec 15, 2009
Racked and loaded... name that splitter behind me?...
Actually, a lawyer can correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that if a trademark holder does not defend their trademark, and knowingly lets an offender slide... they can lose the mark. Andy Laakmann
From Bend, OR
Joined Jan 1, 2001
2,412 points
Dec 15, 2009
I wonder if little Jimmy knows "The South Butt" is an equally relevant mountain geography term. Goodhue
From Boulder, CO
Joined Aug 21, 2008
28 points
Dec 15, 2009
North face of Ama Dablam - taken on approach to Ko...
Andy Laakmann wrote:
Actually, a lawyer can correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that if a trademark holder does not defend their trademark, and knowingly lets an offender slide... they can lose the mark.

You are correct, sir. I wish I could check out the company, but I think all the folks linking from the yahoo page just crashed that little bastard's site. Welcome to the big time, kid.
Erik W
From Boulder, CO
Joined Mar 8, 2007
303 points
Dec 15, 2009
Here's a side-by-side of the logo's.
content.usatoday.com/communiti...
Kev007
Joined Oct 22, 2004
45 points
Site Landlord
Dec 15, 2009
Racked and loaded... name that splitter behind me?...
"The South Butt has previously made it clear to the North Face that the consuming public is insightful enough to know the difference between a face and a butt," he said in a statement.

Depends on the face I guess.....
Andy Laakmann
From Bend, OR
Joined Jan 1, 2001
2,412 points
Dec 15, 2009
Hello, old friend.
Andy Laakmann wrote:
"The South Butt has previously made it clear to the North Face that the consuming public is insightful enough to know the difference between a face and a butt," he said in a statement. Depends on the face I guess.....


HA!
DaveB
Joined Feb 4, 2007
1,119 points
Dec 15, 2009
Rappelling in J-Tree.  Note: Completely unnecessar...
I'm curious to see if this holds up in court. Regardless, looks like Jimmy is going to get a ton of orders in the mean time from the publicity. Randers
From Waukesha, WI
Joined Sep 7, 2009
170 points
Dec 15, 2009
tri-cameron
Joined Oct 30, 2008
335 points
Dec 15, 2009
Rhys at Lake McConaughy.
Different logo, different font, and different text. I dont see the problem. Thankfully Im also not a trademark lawyer. Wade Frank
From Littleton, CO
Joined Sep 3, 2008
148 points
Dec 15, 2009
How I Send
This guy should be sued too!
steal your logo
steal your logo
Tits McGee
From Boulder, CO
Joined Apr 23, 2008
329 points
Dec 15, 2009
mmmm....tree
lol omg wtf...I remember that J-Rat altered the old tsunami picture from the Chouinard catalog; renamed it "Jratonia"-"Disastrously Good Gear", and put it on T shirts. Patagonia didn't find it amusing-sent him a cease and desist letter; so he printed the letter on the back of the remaining shirts. Now there's a collectors item.
As to tnf suing the guy; seems weak, but if they are obligated to keep the copyright, I guess it makes sense.
Joe Huggins
From Grand Junction
Joined Oct 4, 2001
177 points
Dec 15, 2009
Rrrrr
with the purchase of Ranier NP by the Eddie Bauer line; I was looking for some items to wear on my next excursion Buff Johnson
Joined Dec 19, 2005
1,499 points
Dec 15, 2009
I am curious how much TSB sales have increased since the lawsuit publicity. Funny, but unoriginal I don't think he deserves to be sued, but he is a big phony. Forestvonsinkafinger
From Iowa
Joined Mar 6, 2008
2,900 points
Dec 15, 2009
Climber Drawing
The North Farce?
Take a hundred dollar jacket, sew a North Farce logo on it and it sells for three hundred. What a hoot.
It's like PT Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute"
I wouldn't be caught dead wearing that crap.
Favorite clothing of affluent posers.
The North Farce off of Colorado Blvd and I-25 here in Denver is the only company that never paid me for guidebooks they ordered from me.
They still owe me. Cheap bastards.
Tom Hanson
Joined Jan 1, 2001
1,125 points
Dec 15, 2009
Hello, old friend.
Forestvonsinkafinger wrote:
..he is a big phony.

And, not too bright. Dude should've kept it low key and under TNF's legal radar.
DaveB
Joined Feb 4, 2007
1,119 points
Dec 15, 2009
Me on a mixed route Crisco and I did in Rock Canyo...
I think this is freaking hilarious and I'll actually probably end up buying a hoodie. It will go well with the "North Face" fanny pack I bought in China for $3 that has the logo upside down.

Not a business I would have started, but definitely amusing.
Tristan Higbee
From Cambodia
Joined Mar 9, 2008
3,128 points
Dec 15, 2009
My kinda simian
A big phony? Needs to think of something original? You guys can't be serious. Have none of you ever laughed at a parody movie? Are you too sophisticated for that? It was a fucking joke. The kid was making fun of a company that sells over-priced clothes to a target market comprised mostly of people who rarely come closer to adverse weather than seeing it on TV. I doubt the kid was trying to come into riches with the company. It was a joke, and pretty funny in my opinion. Ryan Kelly
From work.
Joined Oct 10, 2006
3,262 points
Dec 15, 2009
near the summit of Yanapaccha (17,913ft) in the Co...
Ryan Kelly wrote:
A big phony? Needs to think of something original? You guys can't be serious. Have none of you ever laughed at a parody movie? Are you too sophisticated for that? It was a fucking joke. The kid was making fun of a company that sells over-priced clothes to a target market comprised mostly of people who rarely come closer to adverse weather than seeing it on TV. I doubt the kid was trying to come into riches with the company. It was a joke, and pretty funny in my opinion.


I couldn't have said it better myself. The North Face hasn't made a quality product in a long time, and the corporate pieces of shit who run the company have probably ran into anything other than a stiff breeze getting out of their beemers.
Eric Rich
From Durham, NC
Joined Nov 25, 2008
155 points
Dec 15, 2009
Taken at MWV Icefest 2014.
The Article wrote:
The company threatened legal action in August after learning of Winkelmann's site. He refused, and in September offered to sell his company to The North Face for $1 million. North Face was not amused.


That's the spirit, kid.
cjdrover
From Somerville, MA
Joined Feb 18, 2009
394 points
Dec 15, 2009
I drudged this up from last year's Property Law notes:

V. Elements of trademark infringement action:
(1) That P possesses a mark;
(2) That D used the mark;
(3) That D’s use of the mark occurred “in commerce”;
(4) That D used the mark “in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising” of goods and services;
(5) That D used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers.


Seems like it will come down to proving elements (2) and (5), and that it could go either way, but I certainly don't know enough about trademark law to make any sort prediction. The mark here is upside down and missing the innermost piece, but in some ways it is still the mark. Element (5) might be a jury question (not that it'll ever get there).
Charles Vernon
From Tucson, AZ
Joined Jan 1, 2001
2,921 points
Dec 15, 2009
Rock Wars, RRG, 2008
The North Farce? Take a hundred dollar jacket, sew a North Farce logo on it and it sells for three"

Ha! Try a 25 dollar Taiwan made jacket that gets the expensive logo. When superb gear companies head into the cash cow of fashion apparel, well I say screw them.
Woodchuck ATC
Joined Nov 29, 2007
3,091 points
Dec 15, 2009
Charles Vernon wrote:
I drudged this up from last year's Property Law notes: V. Elements of trademark infringement action: (1) That P possesses a mark; (2) That D used the mark; (3) That D’s use of the mark occurred “in commerce”; (4) That D used the mark “in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising” of goods and services; (5) That D used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers. Seems like it will come down to proving elements (2) and (5), and that it could go either way, but I certainly don't know enough about trademark law to make any sort prediction. The mark here is upside down and missing the innermost piece, but in some ways it is still the mark. Element (5) might be a jury question (not that it'll ever get there).


Not sure why you think this won't go to trial. You're probably right based on the general fact that the overwhelming majority of cases settle, but similarly silly parody cases have led to published appellate decisions:

This seems at least somewhat close to the Lardache case, which is summarized below. The full decision is at openjurist.org/828/f2d/1482

For the younguns, "Jordache" was a popular brand of designer jeans in the 80s.

"This case, a trademark infringement action brought against a manufacturer that identifies its blue jeans for larger women with a smiling pig and the word "Lardashe" on the seat of the pants, reminds us that "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."1 Appellant Jordache Enterprises, Inc., alleges error in a district court decision finding no likelihood of confusion between the Jordache and Lardashe trademarks and finding no violation of New Mexico's antidilution statute. We affirm."
pfwein
From Boulder, CO
Joined May 7, 2006
91 points
Dec 15, 2009
Hmm, that's not what I meant to say. Should have said "not that it'll necessarily get there." I'm a law student so I don't have a great sense of which cases tend to get to trial, especially in areas like trademark law. Chances are, as you say, that it probably won't, but who knows. This guy's lawyer sounds kinda spunky.

Reminds me a little bit of the only case we studied on the subject, PETA v. Doughney. Doughney registered the peta.org domain name for his site, "people eating tasty animals." If I recall correctly one of the chief issues there was also whether Doughney's use of the mark would tend to "confuse the public." I do recall that PETA won.
Charles Vernon
From Tucson, AZ
Joined Jan 1, 2001
2,921 points
Dec 26, 2009
I don't like the clothing of either co. But it seems TNF is just pissed at being made fun of. There should be no case, IMHO it is a different logo, and a different name. I hope this goes to trial and TNF gets laughed out of court. What a bunch of up-tight assholes. boydpainting
From Estes Park CO
Joined Oct 27, 2009
332 points


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 2.  1  2   Next>   Last>>
Beyond the Guidebook:
The Definitive Climbing Resource
Inspiration & Motivation
to Fuel Your Run
Next Generation Mountain
Bike Trail Maps
Backcountry, Sidecountry
& Secret Stashes
Better Data. Better Tools.
Better Hikes!