Gaia Capitalist

Trademark and copyright on the Internet are issues Virgin corporate lawyers addressed in 2005.  I can only wonder how they treated these people - who were just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. By their own hard work, initiative and investment. Not by riding off of Virgin's fame and fortune. GC 02.15.07  09:12
 
Branson trademark suit sparks debate
'Rebel billionaire' sues small companies using word 'Virgin' -- and often wins.

But is it right?
June 29, 2005: 10:37 AM EDT
By Amanda Cantrell, CNN/Money staff writer

(excerptions from original article) 

“The "rebel billionaire" Richard Branson started out some 30 years ago with a small company that he turned into one of the world's most recognizable brand names -- in part by making sure no one else used the word "Virgin" to sell their wares.

But Branson's latest target is an unlikely foe: Jason Yang, the sole proprietor of Virgin Threads, an online clothing retailer he runs out of his home. Last year, Virgin Group Ltd. had $8.1 billion in sales, according to Hoover's. Virgin Threads, which sells merchandise created by independent fashion designers, recorded about $105,000 in sales over the same period.

In a complaint filed late last year in federal court in New York, Virgin claimed the owners of Web sites like virginthreads.com, online cigar merchant virgincigar.com, and publishing outfit virginpublishing.com are committing "cyberpiracy" by using the word "virgin" in their domain names.

Attorneys for Branson's Virgin Group demanded that the companies named in the suit turn over their domain names to Virgin Group, and so far, every defendant has done just that – except Yang.

"At this point, I have to do something," Yang said of his decision to keep fighting the lawsuit. "There are over 6,000 pages that link to my Web site. Almost all the fashion publications out there have mentioned Virgin Threads at some point or another. I think that would really be a burden to my business. Morally, I don't feel it's right for me to just give up my name."

Virgin and its lawyers say that when consumers think "Virgin," they think Branson – and that any consumer who hears a company using that word in its name will think it's affiliated with Virgin Group Ltd. In legalese, this is called "secondary meaning."

But Yang and his attorney argue that "virgin" is a common English word. They say that unlike "made-up" names like Altria, for example, companies shouldn't be able to lay claim to common words like "virgin."

U.S. corporations may soon have even broader latitude to pursue these claims.

David Bollier, author of the book "Brand Name Bullies: The Quest to Own and Control Culture," puts it more bluntly. "If anyone can lay claim to that word, shouldn't it be the Catholic church?" he asked.

 
Elizabeth Ann Morgan, a trademark and copyright attorney in the Atlanta office of law firm Hunton and Williams and a professor at the Emory University School of Law, noted that under the trademark statute, owners have a duty to police their trademark; failure to do that could mean they abandon their trademark rights.

Bollier said such lawsuits are becoming increasingly frequent as corporations seek to trademark their domain names.

"It generally comes down to who has more lawyers and money as opposed to who is morally right," he said. There have been just a "handful of cases where the little guy was stubborn enough to find pro bono resources to go to court," he added.

June 29, 2005: 10:37 AM EDT
Excerpted by GC. Read entire article Branson trademark suit sparks debate by Amanda Cantrell, CNN/Money staff writer