Chilling effects: leave my blog alone
I got an email this morning from the CEO of TRUCK ADS LLC, asking me to change content of this post on our freo.com group blog because it supposedly infringes on a trademark held by TRUCK ADS LLC. My post was criticising the use of trucks to cruise Fremantle where the only purpose of the truck was to carry an advertisement on the back. Here’s the guts of that email:
From: TRUCKADS < … >
To: info@freo.com
Subject: TRUCKADS TRADEMARK 2838348
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:34:28 -0500
Organization: TRUCKADS
Hi -
Do you think you could do me a favor and change the title in your blog? Perhaps TRUCK ADVERTISING or MOBILE BILLBOARDS.
TRUCK ADS MUST GO! http://freo.com/archives/2004/11/19/truck-advertisments-must-go/
This is not exactly helping our business. Your reference to TRUCK ADS is an assault on our trademark without just cause.
Best Regards… Rod
Rod Harris
President / CEO
mailto: …
Thanks for the email Rod. You start off nice and politely, but what is this “… an assault on our trademark without just cause”? I’m not sure about that. I’m not inclined to change my post on freo.com without a really good reason. I don’t think I’ve assaulted anybody’s trademark by using the words Truck and Ads next to each other in the title of a blog post.
Thankfully, there is place that can help with this sort of thing. I’ve reported the email to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, which is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, and George Washington School of Law clinics. They keep a database, and provide some limited legal comment on emails and notices like this. Will be interesting to see what they say.
I’ll report back what happens…
Historical note: I did get a similar email from some months ago complaining about the URL for the post in question. At that time I changed the relevant bit of the url to truck-advertisments.
[Update 10/5/2005: The cool-named chillbot at chillingeffects.org emailed me to let me know that the original notice I received has now been put up on chillingeffects.org. There are no annotations or comments there yet, though.]
11 Comments to Chilling effects: leave my blog alone
Leave a comment
Pages
Tags
2007 allotment bike birthday brighton bunny christmas france giverny gra grasuth green man holidays libby libbydavy loire low tide mud nabaztag nodestone perennials pushups rain somerset summer Untitled wifi xmasRecent Comments
- Bradley Figueroa on Meetup Moved back to Ginos
- Bertram Hahn on MYOB tax table exploitation
- Leticia Roach on Presence Labs
- Delores Andrews on BBC Reith Lectures
- Dawna Baker on Green Man Cometh
Nice to know that they consider your blog so influential that it will dramatically effect their business.
It’s really a case of political correctness gone mad. Surely you have the right to voice, or in this case post, your opinion.
Exactly. Hence the chilling effect. The chilling effect on free speech.
If somebody doesn’t like what you say, then the can try and pull trademarks on you. Scary stuff.
“This is not exactly helping our business. Your reference to TRUCK ADS is an assault on our trademark without just cause.”
That’s funny…
The email contained no evidence as to why the entry harming their business and your post doesn’t even appear on a ‘truck ads’ google search, so I don’t see why it would hurt their business.
You did have a legitimate reason for using the trademark, which was voicing your opinion about a good or service. You weren’t infringing the trademark, the use of a trademark in connection with a sale of a good, which causes confusion among consumers, constitutes infringement. And you weren’t selling anything.
The email wasn’t a C&D and he asked you to do it as a favour, so you could simply just turn it down.
He needs to realise that not everyone likes his bloody travelling signs (me included).
Hmm, I think you’re being a bit stubborn actually. His company is ‘truck ads’, your post is about ‘truck ads’ but not necessarily those of the ‘truck ads’ company… I think he has a point. Perhaps you should just change the title like he says - he is being reasonably respectful about your opinion, isn’t he?
Hey Graeme:
How can I pass up this little bit of dialog in the name of honest blogging and a healthy debate. Respectfully, I think it was a fair request considering the fact that you are using a deceptively similar term in the context of our mark. It does not matter if the word is one word or two, plural or singular; if it is deceptive than it is diluting the mark and therefore infringing. This is not always an easy concept to understand.
My complaint is that your title deceives the public. Is that okay with you? As a blogger and a publisher who obviously takes pride in your work, I doubt you would ever intentionally mislead your readers. You no doubt pride yourself in being an honest publisher. The proper terms for ads on trucks are “truckside advertising” and “mobile billboards”. The first describes ads displayed on delivery trucks and the latter describes ads on mobile billboard trucks designed for advertising. I would think you want to use the correct terminology recognized by the vast majority of people who are educated about this subject. Your use of the term TRUCK ADS is deceptive and misleading the public. Inaccurate reporting in this instance, hurts our company and that is why I contacted you. By the way, I thought my email to you was private correspondence. Your site has a contact us by email link that I would have thought you would not use to publish as you see fit, but that is another issue all together isn’t it.
I doubt I’ll ever change your mind on the subject of mobile billboards, however why not try to be a bit pragmatic, if not cosmopolitan about this. What is better, a static billboard that is planted on every block as you drive thru town, or a mobile billboard that never stays in one place very long and then goes home at night and is out of sight?
Again, I ask; will you please change the name of your title to more accurately reflect what it is you are talking about? My comments are meant to enlighten and humor you. I remain on the lighter side and always try to pay it forward. In words made famous by another “Rodney” aka Rodney King, “can’t we all just get along?”
All the best!
Rod Harris
President / CEO
Truck Ads, LLC
http://www.truckads.com
Does your Truck Ads business even operate in Australia (let alone Fremantle)? If not, then I think it’s a stretch to say that the use of two common words (truck and ads) on a blog post is diluting your trademark.
Don’t you have better things to do?
Hi Rod Harris
Gra’s posting is about a town in Australia, and you are a US company.
I think there are 2 issues:
1. Cultural. In Australia, “Advertising” and “Adveristement” is frequently contracted (that is, shrunk) verbally or in writing to “Ads”. What Gra has posted is a reference to a generic term and a generic method of advertising. Its having a go (that is, he is taking a shot) at anybody generically in that business.
2. Legal. Registering a trademark like “Truck Ads” in Australia would probably be difficult because its just two generic works, and thats very difficult to register here. On the other hand if you removed the space “TruckAds” it would sail through easily. So, whilst you might have a trademark in the US, you don’t here and if you tried it would have difficulty getting up anyhow.
In the circumstances, I think your request shows an excessive sensitivity. I’ll grant that you were polite and did not threaten to throw a boat-load (or should that be truck-load in this case?) of lawyers. But nevertheless, in the circumstances it does seem a bit over the top.
Thanks for the comments everybody, and thanks to Rod for popping up and having a word. I like the way blogs and the internet allow that to happen.
I’ve had a think about this. It has been occupying far too much of my mind in the last couple of weeks.
I haven’t heard back from the chillingeffects.org people. Unless they encourage me to, I’m not going to change the title of that post.
So, I’m not going to change it. Thanks everybody for your input.
I agree with the majority of posters here that while “Truckads” may be a registered trademark in the united states, using the phrase Truck Ads” is not. Especially when used for non-commercial purposes. Coca-Cola does not have the right to sue for trademark infringement every time someone prints that they “prefer pepsi to coca-cola”. Simply referring to a term in a journalistic sense is perfectly plausible. Even if there were a “journalistic assault” on his trade name, it is perfectly protected by the First Amendment, and unless the commentary can be deemed as libel, which is hard to do in the corporate and non-personal sense, then C&D or punitive damages are nothing more than hot air. His “branding” stinks anway. Have anyone of you all seen this guy’s website, http://www.truckads.com? it looks like a garage sale. IMHO. and that’s not libel. It is a perfectly legal personal opinion based on my own experience and understanding. His site sucks.
List of things that suck:
1. Tab Cola
2. Star-Wars Attack of the Clones
3. Eragon
4. Buick Century’s
5. Nike Footwear
6. Gateway Computers
7. Apple iPODs
8. T-Mobile Cellular
9. America Online
10. Truckads
Sue me. And good luck controlling the blog-sphere you cyber fascists!
Australia Rules! Save a place in Brisbane for me….
I believe I am allowed to say “Coke sucks”, or “IBM product X has serious flaws”…
What’s the difference.
I read some of the posts and I think it is a great site. Tell me about my entire wind I have read a good joke in internet ;) What happens when a ghost haunts a theater? The actors get stage fright.