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 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 May Newsletter: The Foolhardy Practice of Using Faux Terms of Art in Your Contracts

  Most lawyers draft contracts. That's what lawyers do. And they use perceived terms of art ("TOAs") because they want to be paragons of contract-drafting precision. But here is where the canker gnaws:  the words that lawyers insert in their contracts as TOAs are actually not, potentially causing problems in clarity and interpretation. And as I've said time and again, these problems lead to disputes, and disputes lead to litigation, which is always time-consuming and expensive for the parties involved.  Let's first define TOAs in the legal context. According to Professor Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Legal Usage , TOAs have specific, precise meanings that are "locked tight" and based on legal precedent. But then there are the faux TOAs, "whose meanings are often unhinged." Expert contract drafters, Garner says, know that clear, simple drafting is less subject to misinterpretation than using TOAs that are nothing more than "mere jargon....

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Another Trump NDA Bites the Dust!

  In my August 2020 newsletter, we discussed lessons from the New York Supreme Court's rejection of the Trump family NDA. Drafting lesson #1 is the need to specifically describe the information covered by the NDA rather than vague references.  Unfortunately for Trump, this lesson wasn't learned, as evidenced by a recent New York U.S. District Court decision in the case of  J essica Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.   Plaintiff Denson was employed as a national phone bank administrator for the 2016 Trump campaign. Before she was hired, she signed the standard Trump employment contract containing broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions. Confidential Information was defined as: ...all information (whether or not embodied in any media) of a private, proprietary or confidential nature or that Mr. Trump insists remain private or confidential, including, but not limited to, any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/o...