From the Mises blog; archived comments below.
Yeah, patent and copyright are the big IP baddies–but trademark isn’t that hot, either. (See my posts Trademark versus Copyright and Patent, or: Is All IP Evil?; Trademarks Ain’t so hot, either…; The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files; and Trademark and Goats-on-the-Roof Bans; see also various posts on trademark collected at C4SIF.)
A good example of trademark absurdity can be found here in Houston. Every now and then I pass by the Velvet Melvin Pub. See, it used to be called The Velvet Elvis, after the famous print showing a velvet version of Elvis Presley. So Elvis Presley’s estate sues the pub, forcing it to close. According to the Houston Chronicle, it reopened as Woody’s Place, then changed to the Velvet Melvin. One might object that the Framers of the Constitution would not have contemplated federal power being used to shut down a pub like this, but then, the federal trademark law is unconstitutional anyway, since it is not authorized in the Constitution (only patent and copyright are).
Another infamous trademark dispute related to Houston involves the competing taco chains Two Pesos and Taco Cabana. As Wikipedia explains, Two Pesos “was similar to Taco Cabana but Two Pesos never opened in Taco Cabana’s home market of San Antonio. The Two Pesos chain was sold to Taco Cabana in 1993 after losing a drawn-out trademark suit that appeared before the United States Supreme Court. …
“Two Pesos was started in 1985 by Houston restaurateur Marno McDermot, who had been in negotiations with Taco Cabana’s management to take the patio-restaurant chain nationwide. When Taco Cabana’s founding Stehling brothers rejected his advances, McDermot decided to open up his own chain of similarly-themed patio-dining Tex-Mex restaurants under the Two Pesos name. When Taco Cabana entered the Houston market, they sued Two Pesos for stealing their business concepts and “trade dress.”” I.e., they had similar layouts and colors. I.e., this suit penalized market competition.
For those interested in this topic, see my article Rethinking IP, which discussed my upcoming Mises Academy Course Rethinking Intellectual Property, a six-week course starting this Tuesday, March 22.
update:
- Trademark and Goats-on-the-Roof Bans (Sep. 17, 2010)
- March 20, 2011 at 9:53 pm
-
Interesting; I didn’t know anyone wore jean shorts anymore.
- March 21, 2011 at 1:06 am
-
Many people wear jean shorts; I’m surprised they’re scarce enough wherever you live that you didn’t know. Where do you live?
- March 21, 2011 at 2:06 am
-
Some place were jean shorts never became ubiquitous enough to gain the moniker of “jorts”
- March 21, 2011 at 10:13 am
-
Never heard of them referred to as “jorts,” but they’re far more common here than any other kind of shorts.
- March 20, 2011 at 11:53 pm
-
Without a belt no less.
- March 21, 2011 at 4:18 am
-
Stephan,
About trademark absurdities, the recent case of Ford F-150 vs Ferrari F150
( http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110304/F1/110309941 )
is really good example.- March 21, 2011 at 5:53 am
-
Right, because people will be confused between a full-size truck and a completely impractical racing vehicle.
- March 21, 2011 at 11:36 am
-
J Murray
An aside:
It is the truck that is impractical. Whenever I am in the US I am amazed at how many of those inept things there are trundling about. They are almost always one-up with an empty tray- no cargo whatsoever. The few I saw with stuff in the tray were driven by Mexicans or had some company’s livery on the doors. The rest were driven by people who looked like they never even had a use for a truck, let alone knew how to drive one properly.That Ferrari is not a racing vehicle. It is a fast road car with a limited race track ability. As a road car it is far superior to a crashy, bouncy truck in terms of the intended application of getting one (or even two) people along a road. It looks better, it goes faster, it sounds better, it rides better (much better primary and secondary ride than any truck or SUV), it is much safer, it handles better, it has superior controlability, its tactile feedback is way better, it is more precise, it has more roadholding (lots and lots more), it has much more pleasant NVH, it never corners like a galleon carrying too much sail (or as Shelby would say, like twelve pounds of shit in a six pound shit bag), it has a better sound system, the cabin materials are more comfortable and look better, it has better braking performance, it is safer, etc. etc. etc. My preference is for Lamborghinis as the Ferraris tend not to be as dedicated (hence I find them a little soft and compromised), but even so the Ferrari is a sound road car and practical as a day to day commuter should you want.
Leave trucks for when there really is a large cargo to carry. The ineptness of truck road manners and general crudity of the things makes them a poor choice for a personal road vehicle. And if people muct drive a US brand try a Corvette.
Sione
- March 21, 2011 at 11:51 am
-
I used to own a F150. A old one.. 89 or so.
It’s a fantastic vehicle. That was about the peak of Ford quality or so for the late 80′s through the 90′s. They regularly see well over 200 thousand miles. Inline six, 5 speed transmission with granny low, and 4 wheel drive. Bench seats. There was nothing it couldn’t do. A fantastic vehicle and one of the best I’ve ever owned.
Newer ones suck. But all new cars suck. Over priced and over regulated.
- March 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm
-
I hate that unibody crap everybody is using nowadays. Makes repairs way more expensive… there’s a reason the Ford Crown Victoria had a near monopoly on police interceptors and taxi cabs…
- March 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm
-
David
“there’s a reason the Ford Crown Victoria had a near monopoly on police interceptors and taxi cabs”
Several reasons.
Cheap.
RWD.
Cheap.
Largish.
Cheap.
Four doors.
Cheap.
Available customised right from the factory.
Cheap.The Panther platform dates back to 1978, long enough for the tooling to have well and truely paid for itself. A very good effort by Ford and it could have gone on even longer yet, but for certain regulations and laws…
–
I’m a bit of a fan of the old rwd body-on-frame cars. They were easy to refine. NVH could be readily dealt with if that was wanted. They can’t survive the new CAFE and collision regs though. Anyway, the best rwd Ford and GM mass market sedans are made in Australia these days. Check out the Ford Falcon and the Holden Commodore. The US is missing out.
Sione
- March 21, 2011 at 9:41 pm
-
I hate that unibody crap everybody is using nowadays. Makes repairs way more expensive… there’s a reason the Ford Crown Victoria had a near monopoly on police interceptors and taxi cabs…
Unibodies kick ass. It’s a fantastic thing.
With a framed vehicle and you get into a accident it will tweak the frame. If it was practical to run a X-member from corner to corner in the frame then it would be a different issue, but that is not practical. So despite the big beams the strength of a frame in lies in the joints of it. That is a frame that is very strong and can hold lots of weight vertically, gets damaged very easily when hit from the corner. Once the frame is tweaked then you can yank it back out… but it’s like a spring. Eventually, slowly, with the aid of vibration from the road, then it will go all out of shape again. The symptoms you will experience involve engine mounts breaking, body panels screwed up, doors jamming, and alignment issues. Eventually you will have to take it in and have the frame yanked again.
With a _PROPERLY_ designed unibody car with a space frame will suffer from mostly localized failures in the body. That is you will not experience buckling around the doors and such unless your in a very severe accident. (and in that case you just have to get a different car). You can just cut out the damaged portion and weld + glue new body panels into place.
Technically, yeah, that is more expensive then just pulling a frame back into shape, drilling out the fender spot welds, and putting new fenders in place. But with a proper unibody car permanent fixes are quite possible. Were as with a framed vehicle you have to do a frame swap as it’s never going to be the same again.
Both have their places. I wouldn’t want a unibody truck, for example.
Modern cars are fantastic in reliability and engineering. But they are just too expensive. Modern technically CAN make things simpler and cheaper.
Like fuel injection. Fuel injection is fantastic and is extremely simple and rugged. It should make motors dramatically more reliable and cheaper then with carbureted.
But they manage to screw it up and make everything fantastically expensive. The electronics necessary to properly run a fuel injection system is on par with something like a scientific computer. FE can be extremely simple and rugged. Easy to troubleshoot and the electronics should be dead simple and cheap as dirt. Efficient, cheap, nearly unbreakable. The only moving part you need for FE (besides the motor + accessories) is the throttle body and fuel pump. That’s it.
It’s sad that we have declined so far.
- March 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm
-
nate-m
Re Ford F150
They suffered from deficient roll damping of the rear suspension. Next time you drive an early example along a bumpy road notice how the rear end skips sideways across the larger road irregularities. Apart from wrecking the primary ride that also has bad effect when it occurs mid-corner. It can generate snap oversteer and sometimes that is not easy to catch, even by a driver who is ready for a departure.
There were quite a few unintended off-road excursions with 150s when they first were introduced into Australia. Ford withdrew them for a time until (finally listening to its Aussie-based chassis engineers) implementing a fix accross the entire production. At the time I wondered how any manufacturer could have allowed such an obviously dangerous characteristic to go unresolved for so long, especially when it was so simple to fix (just move the damper mounts outboard some). I guess it’s one of those things people don’t care about until it bites. Surprising Ford never seemed to get into litigation difficulties over that one. Lucky!
Sione
- March 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm
-
I’m not sure you read that article linked. How is an open top vehicle weighing 640 kg, stiff racing suspension, only one seat, zero trunk space, and a six figure price tag practical or safe? There’s no way I’ll take that thing the length of Florida, especially on I-95. Wearing a helmet and not being able to bring along luggage for the trip isn’t exactly a vehicle worth bragging about. A Ferarri is a vehicle for people who are fabulously wealthy, live near a track, and enjoy racing. It’s a garage queen and a status symbol, not something to get groceries in.
Also, I take it you haven’t been in a newer model truck. They’re incredibly comfortable to drive, 2011 models handle like a mid-size sedan (the Toyota Tundra has a turning radius similar to economy cars and the F150 isn’t far behind). Of course, I use mine to haul a small boat around. Let’s see a Ferarri do that. But, it’s just a well equipped luxury wise as any BMW or Mercedes on the market (in a few features, better), and being a vehicle designed to tow 4500kg it’ll last forever. The main reason the full size trucks are known to get 300k miles on them is because they’re built above and beyond what’s needed by a wide margin.
- March 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm
-
J Murray
Yes. I read the article.
Re F150.
I’m sorry. I was thinking about the wrong Ferrari. I have not driven an F150. The F150 is a dedicated Formula One race car and not a road car at all. It is a very specialised track car and I suspect it could not be driven on road. In my comments to you I was thinking about the 458 and a certain prototype that preceded it. Both are excellent road cars. Both are superior to any truck I’ve ever driven, other than in potential payload. In real applications total payload to be carried is generally no more than one person (possibly two) and perhaps 20kg of stuff (unlikely to be even that). The 458 has sufficient capacity to deal with that.Re getting groceries
I’ve not used a Ferrari for grocery getting (although I’ve used one as a commuter). On the other hand I have used the Lamborghini for grocery missions. It’s good fun. On the basis of that I’d say the 458 would be OK for the task.Re trucks
The compromises of design necessary to give the truck its potential payload capability result in severe chassis deficencies, among other issues. These manifest themselves in all sorts of ways including safety (or lack of it). For instance, tucks are dynamically inferior to the point of being unsafe. One should NEVER drive a truck as if it were a car, even if it seems to be almost car-like in its initial behaviour (response and feedback in the linear zone). The trouble is that trucks are set up by manufacturers to mimic car type behaviour. This encourages people to believe they can drive a truck as if it were like a road car. It isn’t. People end up assuming that they are competant to drive a truck in similar fashion to a good car. They are not and should not.A reasonably competant chassis development engineer can hide the woeful chassis deficiencies of a truck to the extent that a naive driver may not detect the issues (at first). But the ride remains not well resolved, the steering remains hopeless and the head toss problems give the game away. As for the flexing of the chassis and body, along with the lack of refinement that delivers, no thanks- too crude to put up with. Ten minutes of driving one of these and I remember why I gave up on the horrid things for all tasks except moving large loads.
I consider the design direction that is being taken with trucks (trying to make them car-like) disturbing in that it encourages a false sense of security and an unwarranted confidence. The first time an excursion is made into the non-linear handling zone the driver discovers the chassis has flattered only to deceive. Basically the truck is a dynamic mess and its handling and roadholding problems are encountered at modest demands. For most the realisation that they only have tenuous, indirect control (with even that only available so long as low demands are being made on the vehicle) comes as a real shock. Dangerous indeed.
As far as “new” trucks are concerned, yes I have driven them (most of them). They are every bit as bad as always. As soon as you lean on them some they reveal their woeful shortcomings. They don’t beat physics. A truck is and remains a dynamic mess with poorly resolved ride, handling, NVH, roadholding, refinement, tactile feedback and all the rest- unsafe and a complete waste of time with the exception of when a large payload needs to be moved at low to very modest velocities.
Re luxury.
A truck is never going to appoach the luxury of a BMW or Mercedes super sedan. In the end it comes down to this; you can dress up the interior of a truck cabin to simulated German luxury sedan appearance, but such fakery does not even approach the levels of refined quality inherent inside a German luxury sedan. The refinement just won’t ever be there (too much chassis flex, NVH issues, ride and handling problems), the absolute specification and quality of materials won’t be there, the standard of construction won’t be there…Luxury is not about how many electronic gee gaws and gadgets are scattered around the cabin. There is a lot more to it than that.
Regarding miles
So what? Most Americans flip their vehicles every few years or so anyhow. Most trucks are parted out, or fall off the road, well before they make the third of a million miles you are referring to. Worse is that in the effort to make trucks more car like the manufacturers are compromising what trucks are supposed to do, carry large loads for a long time at lowish costs.Re towing.
How often do you do that? Not daily. Anyway, unless the boat is really, really large you definately do not need a truck for the task. Use a decent sedan.Sione
- March 21, 2011 at 10:34 pm
-
On the basis of that I’d say the 458 would be OK for the task.
How does the 458 handle ice and snow drifts? If it is not able to get up the hill to my house in the winter then it’s going to be a issue.
One should NEVER drive a truck as if it were a car, even if it seems to be almost car-like in its initial behaviour (response and feedback in the linear zone).
If a person confuses a truck with a sports car then they deserve what they get.
Ten minutes of driving one of these and I remember why I gave up on the horrid things for all tasks except moving large loads.
I couldn’t give two shits about road handling capabilities or ride quality. As long as it goes straight when going 50 and can safely navigate a turn going 15 then I am sold.
A vehicle is just a seat strapped to a motor that gets me from point a to point b. A seat with a big box in the back is inherently superior for every day tasks then one that has a small box.
A truck is never going to appoach the luxury of a BMW or Mercedes super sedan.
And a BMW and Mercedes is not something that is ever going to reach a price point that I care to pay for them. It doesn’t have anything to do with how much money I make. I just don’t see the point in spending money on something like that for just driving around.
I paid $1500 dollars for my truck, cash. Talked the owner down from 1900. It lasted about 3 years and 40,000 miles before I got tired of it and had the recyclers haul it away for me. A sofa and a big screen is comfort and luxury. A car is a tool to get me from point a to point b. It’s really just a over-glorified wagon with a engine.
I like sports cars a lot. But unless I am racing them I don’t see the point to owning them. Certainly don’t see the point to driving them around. I am certainly not going to buy one that is so expensive that I have to worry about crashing them. If I have to race and worry about smashing in a fender or two, then what is the point? It ruins the fun.
Although, to be honest, I do prefer small cars over big ones. I liked my big truck, but it was not the only vehicle I owned at the time.
I just wish it was legal to drive those UTVs around on the road. Just put some fabric sides on those things with a decent heater and that would be my ideal going-to-town car. Fantastic things. Everybody should be driving them.
- March 22, 2011 at 5:22 am
-
In regards to towing – sure, I’ll use a sedan…if I want to burn out the transmission and damage the drive train. Sedans aren’t designed to handle much more than its own weight and passengers. If I was towing a 10′ aluminum skiff, maybe, but not a 7,000 lb boat. And this is being charitable as sedans don’t have the necessary tow hook, brake cables, and brake light wires to handle a trailer. Not to mention the lack of safety features like trailer sway control and electronic braking.
- March 21, 2011 at 12:58 pm
-
Just because you don’t use the cargo bay every single time you use the truck doesn’t mean it doesn’t see any use at all. Do you expect people to buy two vehicles if they sometimes need a truck?
- March 21, 2011 at 2:41 pm
-
David
“Do you expect people to buy two vehicles if they sometimes need a truck?”
Yes. Definately. Either do that or just hire the truck when you need.
Sione
- March 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm
-
And why should they listen to you?
- March 21, 2011 at 7:00 am
-
Can we trademark that outfit and get you to never wear it again? Thanks.
- March 21, 2011 at 11:01 am
-
Stephan,
You describe trademark and trade dress as if there is no rational basis for it. I think it finds its roots in the common law under “passing off”, isn’t’ that correct? Doesn’t it have dual purpose in principle of both protecting a trade dress owner’s investment in brand identity, as well as protect the consumer and the trade dress holder from the results of making an incorrect association with origin of good or service? In principle, isn’t that rational?
You seem to be making the general case on the basis of a highly specific aberration. Based on your facts, I don’t think the Elvis estate was risking much and I don’t understand the cost/benefit of going after a pub in Houston, especially one that looks like this. (Unlike some others, I’ll refrain from making a fashion comment here. It’s not easy.) In any case, the remedy wouldn’t be to close them down, as you say. If they served decent burgers and cold beer, I don’t think business is going to fall off much if they changed their sign, do you? If Elvis’s name had been more common, like “Bubba”, they might not have had this problem.
As for the famous Two Pesos case, the guy cut his own franchise without paying up. Do you think it would be cool to throw up a couple of golden arches and call myself MeDonald’s? Why not create In ‘n Out instead? Rather than promoting REAL competition, you want to protect the rights of a low-level emulator? Why?
As we have discussed elsewhere, the party with the most to lose is first the proprietor, and then the consumer. The trade dress owner is in the best position to take action, not the individual consumer, as you have proposed. The consumer, assuming he is just dissatisfied and not injured, will simply take his business elsewhere. A brand is something that takes investment and time, just like writing a book. It belongs to the creator, not the “emulator”.
As a side note, something not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution does not render it automatically unconstitutional. What Constitutional rights or limitation does trademark or trade dress violate? What is your basis to claim unconstitionality? I don’t see it. Murder is not mentioned in the Constitution either, right?
- March 22, 2011 at 1:07 pm
-
Funny how this turned into a car talk episode; I thought NPR was defunded into non-existence?
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }