Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW March Newsletter: About That Goats-on-a-Roof Trademark!


(Author's Note: Thanks to my friend - and intellectual property attorney/patent litigator extraordinaire - Dave Donoghue for bringing this case to my attention.)

Do these goats on a roof look happy? Are they demeaned because they have been relegated to grazing on a grass-covered roof? Are you offended by these roof goats? 

That's what Plaintiff Todd Bank alleged in his attempt to have Defendant Al Johnson's Swedish Restaurant's "goats-on-a-roof" trade dress registration canceled, a dispute that found its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals last year. Here's the trade-dress mark at issue:


We start with the basics. U.S. trademark law allows registration of a trade dress as a symbol or device. That's what Al Johnson did to attract customers to his eatery. Mr. Bank took offense and sought to cancel the mark. The Court cited well-established law that the party seeking to cancel a mark must first prove that it has standing.

To establish standing, Bank needed to show that he had a direct and personal stake in the registration and a reasonable basis for his belief that the mark damaged him. The Court determined that Bank had no real interest in the mark, i.e., no direct and personal stake in opposing the mark. The allegation that the mark was demeaning to goats and offensive to him was insufficient to establish standing after the recent U.S. Supreme Court's Tam decision. In Tam, the Supremes found that the Lanham Trademark Act's bar on the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks violated the First Amendment. 

So, come spring, the goats will peacefully graze on the roof of Al's Swedish Restaurant in scenic Sister Bay, WI. Here's the goat cam (no goats in cold weather).  

Before we leave the goats in Wisconsin, we should note their cousins in Pigeon Ford, TN. Nestled in the Smoky Mountains, the Goats on the Roof Restaurant has a license agreement with Al Johnson for putting goats on a roof too. That's the beauty of having a registered trademark. You can license others to use your mark, and they'll pay you for the privilege. (Contact me if you want ideas on how to monetize your intellectual property.)

Novel ways to use animals for promotional purposes were in the news just recently. People are gluing MAGA (and other hats) on pigeons, and there's evidence that this practice can hurt the birds. Aren't there more humane ways to get your message across than messing with animals? My wish is that if you do this, you'll wake up tomorrow with your head sewn to the carpet.
____________________________________

If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. And my email address is busklaw@charter.net. Thanks!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW June Newsletter: Forcing Business Behavior Changes Through Buried Contract Provisions: Salesforce and Camping World

As reported by  The Washington Post , business-software giant Salesforce  recently instituted a policy barring its retailer customers from using its technology to sell semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15 used in numerous mass shootings. One such customer is  Camping World , whose Gander Outdoors division sells many "AR" and other semi-automatic rifles .  Rather than approach Camping World/Gander, a "leading" Salesforce customer, and negotiating the termination of their semi-automatic rifle sales in exchange for some benefit (such as a software discount), Salesforce was tricky. They buried a provision barring the sale of semi-automatic rifles in the acceptable-use policy  ("AUP") binding on Camping World/Gander: Salesforce wants to force Camping World/Gander to make a major change to its business model via an addition to their AUP that is irrelevant to their customer's licensed use of Salesforce software. And although sneaky, I bet tha

The BUSKLAW Halloween 2022 Post: Stephen King's Asides on Poor Writing in Fairy Tale

  Having just read  Stephen King's Fairy Tale in time for Halloween, it's appropriate to examine his asides on poor writing included in the book. (BTW, Fairy Tale is a good read with King's typical well-executed character development, plot, and a great finish to the story. But you have like the whole Grimm fairy tale genre before you read his take on it.)  Stephen King doesn't tolerate anything less than crisp prose. When the story's hero, Charlie Reade, tries to read a book about the origins of fantasy and its place in the world matrix ("what a mouthful"), he can only scan it because: It was everything I hated about what I thought of as "hoity-toity" academic writing, full of five-dollar words and tortured syntax. Maybe that's intellectual laziness on my part, but maybe not. Later on, Charlie tries to focus on a particular chapter in the "origins of fantasy" book about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but is put off by "t

The BUSKLAW March Newsletter: So a Man Walks into a Yard Sale and...

  (not the real bowl, but can you tell the difference?) Buys a porcelain floral bowl for 35 bucks. As CNN reported  here , the man then decides to have the bowl appraised, suspecting that it might be worth something. Turns out, the bowl was commissioned by China's imperial court during the 15th Century and is worth up to $500,000 when Sotheby's auctions it off this month.  You are the seller's attorney, what do you do (besides getting your fee upfront, you'll see why). You check the well-established case law on what constitutes a unilateral mistake of fact. Based on the known facts of this case, you have bad news for your client.   Here, the seller mistakenly underpriced the bowl, a unilateral mistake. Generally, courts are reluctant to void a contract when only one party is mistaken. But you forge ahead anyway and sue the buyer (before the auction) to rescind - or set aside - the contract. You tell the court that your client will gladly return the $35 purchase price i