Unflippingbelievable! Sarah Palin trademarks her name

mailonline ^ | 20th June 2011 | David Gardner

[ExTexasRedhead]

According to Generic Liberals and the MSM Liberals, Sarah is just too stupid to have figured this out. ROFLMAO

[Sea Parrot]

Not at all, unless she is going to do a porn flick and call herself Sarah Palin.

[Tallguy]

Didn’t Dale Earnhardt do something like this? Maybe he just “trademarked” his signature, or something.

Love to see Sarah send a bill to Tina Fey & “Saturday Nite Live” for every performance. This would be similar to musicians who flip-out on politicians who lawfully use their songs at public gatherings. They b*tch anyway when they don’t agree with the political message (conservatism) that is being marketed.

[allmendream]

I hear that as far as trademark enforcements go - the people to really watch out for are the Rolling Stones and the estate of Elvis.

Put that lip logo on something and try to sell it and Keith Richards himself shows up to F*$^ you up! Ok, not really - but you will LOOK like Keith Richards by the time their lawyers are done with you.

See “the Verve” and “Bittersweet Symphony”.......

[deport]

No oops needed. It was reported last week because the okay is about complete.

Here is a link to Google which has several articles from back in early Feb. when the application was submitted.

Palin Name Trademark apps

[Steve_Seattle]

Your example points to what I was getting at - there is a gray area where “fair use” becomes a bit murky. For example, now that Palin has a trademark, could someone market a mocking t-shirt with an image of her inside a circle with a slash through it?

[TheCornerOffice]

using her name to create a product or service that mocks or demeans her

Bingo! She's just putting the legal pieces into place to be able to control unauthorized use of her name for abusive or commercial purposes, and also for things like domain names, I suspect.

I don't expect her to exercise those rights against campaign button vendors, but rather is laying the foundation to shut down anyone who tries to use her name in a way she doesn't approve of for business or political purposes.

[nuconvert]

I agree. Smart idea.

[allmendream]

Absolutely.

I think part of the idea is that any profit made making fun of the image wouldn't be profit that the trademark owner would be deprived of.

Palin isn't likely to put out and make a profit from T-shirts with her image and a circle and slash through it any more than Disney would put out and attempt to profit from a “Mickey Rat” image of a disgusting rat with Mickey Mouse ears.

As such I think it would absolutely be “fair use” for someone to ‘satirize’ or ‘parody’ her image by saying - basically - NO SARAH PALIN.

[Licensed-To-Carry]

Outflippingstanding

[Allegra]

See Post #24 please and let’s try not to be like the humorless Paulbots. :)

[Steve_Seattle]

"I think part of the idea is that any profit made making fun of the image wouldn't be profit that the trademark owner would be deprived of."

Excellent point; by making fun of someone, you aren't depriving them of something that they have economic rights to because they (presumably) wouldn't try to profit from making fun of themselves. But it is kind of ironic in a way that negative or mocking uses of an image are the ones that are legally protected.

[allmendream]

Hey, Weird Al Yankovitch has a right to make a living!

;)

[Hot Tabasco]

Perhaps another FReeper has the answer.

Ask JimRob, he got a kiss from her......

[glorgau]

Also: I wonder how it’s going to impact any Palin for President efforts.

All the "I hate Sarah Palin" t-shirts and bumper stickers will be paying her a royalty.

[Hot Tabasco]

Perhaps Sarah is doing that to discourage angry drunken trolls like this:

Exactly! And if I recall, there was only one paragraph in that wad of toilet paper that actually made reference to Rush.........

[Steve_Seattle]

Yeah, Weird Al makes a living out of satirizing other people’s music, and I don’t think he’s been sued. On the other hand, there have been some musical copyright lawsuits that I didn’t agree with at all, like the one concerning George Harrison’s “My sweet Lord,” which was allegedly derived from some other song. I think there was a similar lawsuit involving The Doors “Hello I love You.” In those cases, my argument is that no one ever confused those songs with the ones they were allegedly based on, so there was no copyright infringement. Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley created certain styles and rhythms and formats that were copied endlessly, but that’s not to say the copiers were creating music that Berry or Diddley had any copyright claim to. Even if someone (e.g. Weird Al) did a song called “Johnny B Bad”, Berry would have no claim.

[Lancey Howard]

Good move!
I read here that others in her family have taken similar measures. With the hateful, scumbag socialist left willing to do anything to smear her name including identity theft, she needs to protect herself to whatever extent possible.

(LOL, naturally, the scumbag Euro-socialist who wrote this childish “report” says she is protecting her name for profit... Hahahaaa... Even the Euro-morons who read his drivel understand the real reason she did it.)

[gatorhead]

Think about Larry Flynt and other pornographers who have already made a number of hard core films that just slightly twist her name but are protected by so-called satire. Google Nailin’ Palin and vomit your guts out.