The Oatmeal sued over trademark by ‘Oatmeal Studios’(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
The Oatmeal sued over trademark by ‘Oatmeal Studios’
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/the-oatmeal-sued-over-trademark-by-oatmeal-studios/
9 comments
This is how trademarks are supposed to work; "The Oatmeal" and "Oatmeal Studios" are similar and it's reasonable to think that consumers could confuse the two. At the very least, it's way more legitimate than the FunnyJunk crap.
Agreed; and they're even arguably in the same business wrt greetings cards.
I would venture a guess that someone at Oatmeal Studios was probably aware of The Oatmeal as an online entity; they took no legal action until Inman entered their domain. I would also expect that Inman was not aware of Oatmeal Studios prior to this venture, and that this matter will be amicably resolved.
I'm not sure how, other than Inman completely giving up on greeting cards, or somehow completely separating it from The Oatmeal.
Third option: Inman pays Oatmeal Studios -- either a consideration for using their trademark, or buys the trademark outright.
Fourth option: Inman licenses his content to Oatmeal Studios, who then handle the greeting card side of the business and pay him a royalty.
(I have no idea of the relative turnover of these two businesses so I don't know if a licensing option is feasible.)
Fourth option: Inman licenses his content to Oatmeal Studios, who then handle the greeting card side of the business and pay him a royalty.
(I have no idea of the relative turnover of these two businesses so I don't know if a licensing option is feasible.)
Fifth option: Inman keeps making greeting cards, but brands them differently.
Sixth option: Inman mobilizes his zombie hordes and obliterates all evidence that oatmeal studios ever existed...
I just took a look at the Oatmeal Studios website and some examples of their greeting cards. They don't seem to be in the extreme 'Grandma/kittens&&puppies' sector of the market, so I wouldn't automatically assume they would consider Inman's sense of humour detrimental to their brand. This might be settled through financial consideration.
Then again, without direct knowledge of the principals, it is impossible to predict how this might play out.
Then again, without direct knowledge of the principals, it is impossible to predict how this might play out.
He could just name his greeting cards something else. From what I'm reading the other company doesn't have a problem with the site, just the cards (and it does appear to be a reasonable case -- they've been selling "Oatmeal" greeting cards for 35 years; quite possibly longer than Inman has been alive).
I agree with the first two, not so sure it will resolve amicably though - perhaps.
Nice to see a lawsuit on here that I don't object to, for once.
Lawyers in reasonable activity shocker.
It'll never last.
It'll never last.
For once, a patent/trademark lawsuit that doesn't smell like bullshit. I hope it is resolved amicably (I think it will).
This one is hard to call. Trademark owner should defend trademarks. Oatmeal studio has a legit case where it's not making up the charges or claiming damages - it's simple, plain trademark infringement(per the article). On the other hand, oatmeal is a loaded term. Even if The Oatmeal did some searches before settling on the name, it's very likely he didn't know about the existence of Oatmeal studio.
Trademark owner should defend trademarks.
Trademark owners have to defend their trademarks, or risk losing them.
Trademark owners have to defend their trademarks, or risk losing them.
> Trademark owners have to defend their trademarks, or risk losing them.
Should have worded it better. That's what I meant. I don't know how relevant it is. Suppose Oatmeal Studios sue some fictional "Oatmeal Cards" and "Oatmeal Cards" argue that they didn't defend their trademark as they didn't go after The Oatmeal. Can't Oatmeal Studios claim they weren't aware about The Oatmeal's existence?
Should have worded it better. That's what I meant. I don't know how relevant it is. Suppose Oatmeal Studios sue some fictional "Oatmeal Cards" and "Oatmeal Cards" argue that they didn't defend their trademark as they didn't go after The Oatmeal. Can't Oatmeal Studios claim they weren't aware about The Oatmeal's existence?
A quick google search for 'oatmeal greeting cards' brings up oatmeal studios for me. In fourth place behind theoatmeal.com
There should also be a specific trademark search available, not sure what that would be in the US.
Did Oatmeal studios contact Innman first before bring the suit?
There should also be a specific trademark search available, not sure what that would be in the US.
Did Oatmeal studios contact Innman first before bring the suit?
> A quick google search for 'oatmeal greeting cards' brings up oatmeal studios for me. In fourth place behind theoatmeal.com
What I was saying was TheOatmeal started as random comic. He might have checked for existence of a similar entity at that time. Most likely, he assumed getting a domain name means no one with the same name exists. Merchandise was gradual expansion.
What I was saying was TheOatmeal started as random comic. He might have checked for existence of a similar entity at that time. Most likely, he assumed getting a domain name means no one with the same name exists. Merchandise was gradual expansion.
Article inaccurate. Notes: "Inman responded by drawing a picture of a woman meant to be Carreon's mother becoming intimate with a Kodiak bear." but in reality: "the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother."[0]. That's okay though Joe Mullin, you made the same mistake Carreon did himself. "That fact that he [Inman] wants to react by advocating net war against me and accusing my mom of bestiality makes him lower than the low." [1]
0 http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update 1 http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...
0 http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update 1 http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...
Can one really trademark the term "oatmeal" for their own personal use?
I mean, at what point are Wilford Brimmley or The Quaker going to show up and alert you to the fact that you did NOT coin the term "oatmeal". I feel the same about Apple and other extremely generic names. You name your company something to rudimentary and generic, you waive all right to people using the name in other venues. Granted, if another computer company starts up and chooses the name "Apple"... take 'em down.
I mean, at what point are Wilford Brimmley or The Quaker going to show up and alert you to the fact that you did NOT coin the term "oatmeal". I feel the same about Apple and other extremely generic names. You name your company something to rudimentary and generic, you waive all right to people using the name in other venues. Granted, if another computer company starts up and chooses the name "Apple"... take 'em down.
"Can one really trademark the term "oatmeal" for their own personal use?"
You can, but it has to be for a specific use. Microsoft can stop you from calling your computer operating system "Windows" but they can't stop you from starting "Nobleach Storm Windows".
If I recall correctly (and this may not be the exact situation) when Apple Computer first started they had to make some sort of agreement with Apple Records (started by The Beatles) that specified that Apple Computer wouldn't go into the music business. That had to be renegotiated once the iPod came around.
You can, but it has to be for a specific use. Microsoft can stop you from calling your computer operating system "Windows" but they can't stop you from starting "Nobleach Storm Windows".
If I recall correctly (and this may not be the exact situation) when Apple Computer first started they had to make some sort of agreement with Apple Records (started by The Beatles) that specified that Apple Computer wouldn't go into the music business. That had to be renegotiated once the iPod came around.
It seems that suing each other is an American substitute for civil discourse and common sense. If I was Gary Larson I'd consider suing Oatmeal Studios for all the derivative card designs they sell.
Trademark law requires the owner to protect it.
What's more civil than having your well-trained legal representatives argue out an issue for you?
I guess the most civil way this could end is The Oatmeal just decides to sell the cards under a different name but is allowed to keep the webcomic/online stuff under 'The Oatmeal'.
I am surprised no one mentioned just how god awful the "Oatmeal Studios" greeting cards are. Unfortuantely for Inman however, this case is legit.