Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

7518 Views 18 Replies 8 Participants Last post by ryan barker, Mar 29, 2012

Hegemone

Discussion Starter · Mar 27, 2012

Just found this interesting. "May the odds be for ever in your favor." has been trademarked so even though a quote is not copyrightable this quote is protected by trademark law. I think they knew the marketing and merchandizing value of this phrase. So all you peoples beware using it on shirts and stuffs.

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

ryan barker

· #2 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

unless they plan on using that as a brand name, i fail to see how that phrase can be trademarked. it says quite plainly, 'a trademark is a brand name.'

Trademarks Home

kimura-mma

· #3 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

It also says that trademarks are used to identify and distinguish goods and services. So it can definitely be trademarked if they are using that mark to identify their brand and/or product. Similar to "Just Do It." It's not a brand name, but it's clear to everyone what brand that mark identifies. Will it be challenging to get that mark registered? Perhaps. But I'm sure Lions Gate has attorneys working on it.

GN

· #4 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

What if I made a shirt that reads: "May the odds be for ever in MY favor" hmmmm... What say you Tim?

kimura-mma

· #5 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

I would say that the odds are in Lions Gate's favor.

ryan barker

· #6 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

right, 'just do it' relates to nike's goods. what does a quote from a movie relate to in terms of goods and services?

ryan barker

· #7 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

i did a little research just now, and while there is a *bit* of debate, and just a little it seems, apparently it's trademarkable.

Mabuzi

· #8 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

Can they trade mark a sentence that has been used before? Really this is the first time in history this sentence has been used. Phhtt.

Its like trying to own the gene patent or guys buying up URL's for business and countries. I suppose its how much you have to spend on lawyers.

kimura-mma

· #9 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

Mabuzi said:
Can they trade mark a sentence that has been used before? Really this is the first time in history this sentence has been used. Phhtt.

Its like trying to own the gene patent or guys buying up URL's for business and countries. I suppose its how much you have to spend on lawyers.

It's based on the use of the mark in commerce. Just because a sentence is verbalized or written doesn't make it eligible for trademark. But if it is used to identify a source of goods, then it is.

I'm sure "Life is Good" has been used hundreds of times before. But when someone used it as a t-shirt brand, it became a trademark and is fully enforceable.

As for the Hunger Games mark, there is a live application submitted to the US Trademark Office. It will be up to them over the next few months to examine the mark and either approve it or reject it.

ryan barker

· #10 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

then it gets into how distinctive the phrase is in relation to the product or service (which, i guess in this case, the 'service' is entertainment) and brand identification... or something like that. if your sentiment is 'these lawyers have taking things too far,' i agree. i was recently reading an article about an art show in london, i believe it was, that was comprised of art made entirely of other people's copyrighted stuff. i couldn't tell you what was in the gallery, as no pictures were allowed for fear of, heh heh, someone infringing on the artists' copyrights. they wouldn't even allow a pic of the sign saying no pictures because of the font they used.

kimura-mma

· #11 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

I don't understand why people get so upset about trademarks. How many goods and services does any one in this thread expect to sell using that mark within any of the classifications listed on the trademark application? No one cared about this yesterday. But because it came up today, people complain about lawyers and whether the mark should even be allowed to be trademarked. Anyone who now wants to sell these products is probably doing so because the movie just came out. And that's exactly why they are applying for a trademark.

Rodney

· #12 · Mar 27, 2012

re: Hunger Games "May the odds be for ever in your favor" trademarked

Anyone who now wants to sell these products is probably doing so because the movie just came out. And that's exactly why they are applying for a trademark.

Exactly, it's not like they are preventing anyone from "saying" the phrase.

But the writer's creativity and the million's spent on the movie and marketing made the phrase popular and now *others* would like to capitalize on its popularity, but are bummed that they can't.

What I do find interesting is that CafePress has secured the licensing for this movie so people *can* make and sell items related to the movie legally IF they do it through CafePress

Reactions: 1

Hegemone

Discussion Starter · #13 · Mar 28, 2012

Peeps on etsy are having a field day. It's a catch phrase for a franchise that requires liscensing. Cafe press is brilliant if they took that proactive step. It's a pretty cool case study if you ask me, media is becoming more and more fluid and cross dimensional as technology embeds itself deeper and deeper into our lives.

ryan barker

· #14 · Mar 28, 2012

it's not just because of this one case. personally, i could care less about 'the hunger games' and have no intention now or ever of profiting from any remotely related to it. why? because i can come up with something on my own and i'm not a profiteer. some of these examples are valid, other are like 'really?'

i was watching 'kitchen nightmares' awhile back and they had this lady from baltimore on there who had copyrighted or trademarked the city's word it was known for, 'hon.' then she threatened people with lawsuits if they used the city's word. baltimore had to spend thousands of dollars re-doing a lot of their advertising and such because it had the 'hon' catchword. was the woman right? well, she was legally in the right. didn't make her any less of a complete jerk and it almost ruined her business as a result.

things like that, where someone just profiteers from something they didn't even come up with, that galls me. it galls me because it's not right. it's legal, but not right. it's not a savvy business move, it's just something only a jerk would even think to do. imo, the catchphrase should be community property.

in today's world, someone would make it illegal for anyone else to make a pizza if they could. it can get out of hand.

now, if you didn't tell me that phrase came from that movie, i would have thought it was some ad for vegas. off hand it doesn't sound very distinctive.

See less See more

kimura-mma

· #15 · Mar 28, 2012

ryan barker said:
i was watching 'kitchen nightmares' awhile back and they had this lady from baltimore on there who had copyrighted or trademarked the city's word it was known for, 'hon.'

Yeah, I saw that as well. That was one of those situations where the legal issue should have taken a back seat to the business issue.

ryan barker said:
off hand it doesn't sound very distinctive.

I'm sure there was a time when Burger King, Milky Way and Tide didn't sound very distinctive either. But over time, it's hard to imagine those names wouldn't be trademarked.

Just because a sentence is used in a movie, doesn't make it eligible for a trademark. And just because someone applies for a trademark, doesn't mean it should be automatically approved. Obviously, there's more to it than that. A mark needs to meet trademark eligibility and the USPTO examining attorney needs to approve it. But if that happens, then we need to respect that.

The important thing to consider is that once a mark is used to identify and distinguish goods or services, it ceases to be generic.

So this mark may seem generic now, but that may be because we haven't learned the scope of what Lions Gate intends to use the mark for. 10 years from now, the mark may seem different to us.

See less See more

dptk

· #16 · Mar 28, 2012

If I were to sell shirts with this phrase it is very obvious I am referring to the book or movie and am trying to profit from somebody elses creative work. To me, this doesn't seem like the ethical thing to do, regardless of the legal issue. It seems so many people on this board try to find a loophole or other way to justify that they intend to profit from somebody else's creative work.

Reactions: 1

ryan barker

· #17 · Mar 29, 2012

sure, trademarking a name is essential. what sounds like a tagline to a movie sounds more appropriate to have copyrighted.

as far as being generic, it's rather ironic. i was reading awhile back how some trademarks, if i recall the sentiment of the article correctly, are/have become so ingrained in our lexicon that it's difficult for the companies to enforce their rights. in effect, once a trademark becomes the generic term, the owner's power to effectively sue for violation is greatly diminished, if not gone. one example, as i remember, was kodak, and another company fearing the same result is xerox.

Fenrir

· #18 · Mar 29, 2012

At least Kodak and Xerox still own their names, while things like aspirin were lost to the original owners.

This is why big companies always wind up looking "mean and evil" and sue anyone who infringes on their trademarks, even Moms and daycare centers and lemonade stands, because if they don't, there's a chance they'll lose it forever.

ryan barker

· #19 · Mar 29, 2012

anything can be taken too far, and in this hyper-sensitive day in age it usually is. i don't think anyone is arguing legitimate claims, but there are legit fair use cases that the big companies win just b/c they have the money to continue keeping attorneys on retainer, c&d's are handed out like candy at halloween without any real merit, things like that. too, i don't say it's *necessarily* the companies themselves that go too far as much as lawyers who just might have the order to 'defend us' and go overboard with it because they can and money is no object. i wouldn't even say that most of the lawyers don't have a case, as i'm sure the vast majority of them do. but, as accountable at the public is to these laws, so should the legal eagles be held accountable for their tresspasses, also, but the fault falls on the company as captain of the vessel.

i went to 'seven dwarfs day care' when i was a tot. it took disney 20 years to have the pics of the dwarfs removed from the sign. they did, and kept the name as the name without the images didn't necessarily refer to anything, i suppose.

See less See more

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.