|  | ||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Weather Reports > Branson Attempts to Rip "Virgin" From the Dictionary | 
|
|  Branson Attempts to Rip "Virgin" From the DictionaryJuly 10, 2005 Abstract: Virgin Enterprises, Richard Branson's group of companies, has tried to stop others from using the word "Virgin" in names and domain names. When it went after Virgin Threads, a site featuring emerging independent fashion designers, owner Jason Yang thought that was a stitch too far. He's fighting back against Virgin Enterprises' trademark claims. Virgin Enterprises, Richard Branson's group of companies, has tried to stop others from using the word "Virgin" in names and domain names. When it went after Virgin Threads, a site featuring emerging independent fashion designers, owner Jason Yang thought that was a stitch too far. He's fighting back against Virgin Enterprises' trademark claims. Virgin Enterprises filed a federal lawsuit against VirginThreads.com and several others using virgin* domain names, accusing them of trademark infringement, dilution, and cyberpiracy. All for using a word that's been in the English language for far longer than mogul Branson has been using it as a trademark for his businesses. As David Bollier asks in a CNN Money story on the subject, "If anyone can lay claim to that word, shouldn't it be the Catholic church?" Traditional trademark law, concerned with consumer confusion, finds infringement when one use of a mark tends to deceive consumers about the source of goods or services they're buying. Dilution goes beyond that to allow the holder of a "famous" mark to bar use that "causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark," even outside the trademark holder's realm of goods. Dilution is a big gun, and one rightly limited to distinctive coined terms and actual harm, as the Supreme Court ruled when it held that "Victor's Little Secret" did not dilute "Victoria's Secret." As CNN also points out, legislation under consideration in Congress could ease the way for plaintiffs to claim dilution against common-word trademarks. By removing the requirement that plaintiffs prove dilution's harm, the proposed bill would make it easier for trademark holders to claim their "famous" marks were being weakened -- even when those marks were famous because they borrowed from pre-existing meaning in the language. Our language would certainly be poorer if those talking about travel documents were forbidden from saying "visa," those at the foot of the Mississippi couldn't say they were at its "delta," and those talking about fresh designs (or non-alcoholic tomato drinks) couldn't call them "virgin." But trademark holders tend to be grabby, and once they've snagged a Federal registration one class of goods or services, they want more. Look out Virginia, you might be next. For more on the VirginThreads.com lawsuit, see this page; for some cool new designs, see the Virgin Threads store.
|
|
|
|
Recent C&Ds