Using a registed product in your song title?

Theron D · Post by **Theron D** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:54 am

Do you need permissions? For example say if I wanted to call a song "Coca-Cola Rock Song" or "I'm think of Mountain Dew" or something similar that involves a registered product name.....can you use this in a song title without permissions?

Beck did a song called "MTV Makes Me Wanna Smoke Crack"...I'm guessing that MTV is a registered name, and I'm guessing that he did not get permission...please correct me if I am wrong....

Any clarity much appreciated...

Theron D

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:03 am

The first track on Daniel Johnston's new album is called Frito Lay. I don't know for sure, but I don't think he got permission.

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:06 am

Coke, Mountain Dew, etc are protected by trademark, not copyright. You can't copyright a name. I could write a song called "Susudio" or whatever the fuck that was, and Phil Collins couldn't do shit about it. But you couldn't make a product and call it Coca Cola.

Theron D · Post by **Theron D** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:51 am

That's what I thought, thanks for the input!

Theron D

;ivlunsdystf · Post by **;ivlunsdystf** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:59 am

Theron D wrote:
Beck did a song called "MTV Makes Me Wanna Smoke Crack"...I'm guessing that MTV is a registered name, and I'm guessing that he did not get permission...please correct me if I am wrong....

Theron D

Umm... I'm pretty sure that "Crack" is a registered trade name, for one thing...

In the song "Lola" by the Kinks, I have it on good authority (heard this on Casey Kasem when I was about 10) that they had to fly back across the atlantic to the studio after finishing the recording so they could sub in "cherry cola" where they had originally sung "Coca Cola"

pantone247 · Post by **pantone247** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:29 am

AKA Drive on TMBG's Lincon record, was Nyquil driver...

I think they were 'advised' to change it

Professor · Post by **Professor** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:28 am

Well, if you use a name without permission, the worst possible thing that could happen is that a pack of hungry lawyers paid for by some of the world's largest corporations will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Look up all the news stories about Monster Cable suing everybody under the sun for using the word Monster anywhere and everywhere and winning big settlements. They sued and won a settlement for the movie "Monsters Inc." and there was an article a while back about them suing a company called "Ski Monster" which is a non-profit in Colorado that takes inner-city kids up to the mountains to experience winter sports.
By contrast, the worst thing that can happen if you ask permission is that they say, "no".
And of course, the best thing that could happen is that they might say yes.

Now the funny thing about this is that they cannot trademark the 'sound' of their names, only the printed words and logos. They could try to sue for slander if they think your message is about them even if their "name" doesn't appear, but they would have to prove it is untrue.
For example, if Beck's song was entitled "Empty Vee makes Wanna Smoke Crack" well then he hasn't used their trademarked name, "M T V" so they can't get him there, and even if they wanted to try for slander (or maybe libel, can't remember which is which right now) then they would have to prove it is about them and that it is an untrue statement. Well, since they can't prove it doesn't make him wanna do crack, there's really no case.
But that still doesn't mean they might not throw enough lawyers at you that it takes $100k or more to fight it off.
I'd be willing to bet that Beck (or rather Beck's people) called up MTV and said, 'Beck wants to write a song with your name in the title' and they were thrilled and said yes.

By contrast, the band Dada released a hit song called "Dizz Knee Land" back around '91... probably safe to assume they didn't get permission.

Trademarks are among the most heavily protected of protected materials. More so perhaps than literary or music copyrights. And when you're talking Coca Cola who is highly protective of their name and reputation, you're talking about a company that can drop a million bucks to have their staff lawyers ride you for the next five years because it's still cheaper than one 30-second Super Bowl (tm) commercial.
(Oh yeah, did you know that TV and radio stations weren't allowed to say "Super Bowl" (tm) on the air without sending a royalty check to the NFL? That's why everyone referred to it as "the big game".)

-Jeremy

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:47 pm

Sure, they could sue you for it, but they wouldn't win. Those companies get settlements b/c sometimes it's easier and less expensive to cave than to pay lawyers and fight it. There's no legal reason Monster cable should get any money from Monsters, Inc, as far as I know. There are (at least) three audio companies called ATI. There's Famous Ray's pizza, Original Ray's, Famous Original Ray's etc. Those shouldn't happen, but it's allowed to have the same name for a company that does something totally unrelated to the other company-- the issue is whether people would be confused. There are a million different companies called Apex, for example. Once you're as big as Coke, I guess that protection expands, but while you may get sued for using the name in a song, I don't think there's any legal grounds for a suit. It would just be expensive to fight it. I'm not a lawyer though...

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:50 pm

Professor wrote: (Oh yeah, did you know that TV and radio stations weren't allowed to say "Super Bowl" (tm) on the air without sending a royalty check to the NFL? That's why everyone referred to it as "the big game".)

-Jeremy

That sucks. That violates free speech and whoever went against the NFL on that would ultimately win if they fought it to the end. No one wants to spend the money, so they suck the corporate nads. What a bunch of crap.

Professor · Post by **Professor** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:10 am

ubertar wrote:Sure, they could sue you for it, but they wouldn't win.

Provided you have the resources to fight it. But unless you have a few hundred grand to blow on proving that, it ain't worth tempting the fight. And somehow Monster cable continues to sue huge companies like:
-- Walt Disney Co., which distributed Pixar Animation Studios' hit film "Monsters, Inc.''
-- Bally Gaming International Inc. for its Monster Slots.
-- Hansen Beverage Co. for a Monster Energy drink.
-- The Chicago Bears, whose nickname is "Monsters of the Midway.''
That's according to this article.

But if you want some encouragement, of a very strange type, then you might consider the reverse problem that faced the Thermos company. About ten years ago their ownership of the trademarked name "Thermos" was revoked by the USPTO because the name had become so synonymous with the 'insulated beverage bottles' that other businesses complained they could not market their products in fair competition. The PTO agreed and revoked the name and now anyone can sell thermos bottles, and Thermos can sell 'Thermos-Brand insulated bottles' or 'Original Thermos Bottles' or derivations like that, but that's still not so useful when everyone else can sell plain old "thermos" bottles. Needless to say, the decision had companies like Xerox, Rollerblade and Jet-Ski shaking in their boots.
So what Monster Cable really needs is a lawsuit against them from that angle, or perhaps a lawsuit from the owners of a few old monster movies that would have a copyright registration that predates Monster Cable.

-Jeremy

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:29 am

I guess I won't be buying any Monster cable anytime soon. Who wants to support a bully?

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:38 am

Interesting article in the Times-- Apple Corps is suing Apple computer:

Professor · Post by **Professor** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:11 am

Yeah, before I knew about Monster's lawsuits I just didn't like their products, but now I can say I really don't like the company and their practices.
Friends don't let friends buy Monster Cable (tm).

The funny thing is though that normally I would be on their side. I'm totally on the side of Apple Corps. music who obviously worked out a settlement with Apple Computer back in '91 basically carving up the world between them saying 'we do the music and you do the computers'. And indeed I'd be on the side of Thermos in their fight, and would be on the side of Rollerblade or Jet-Ski should that argument ever come their way.
I'd even be on Monster's side if they had other companies wandering close to the wire & cable, power conditioner, or A/V business. But going after TV shows, beverage companies and a tiny little backwoods used clothing store is way over the top. They are trying to claim ownership of a word that existed before them and is not even a proper name of a company founder. Imagine someone like Infinity Loudspeakers (or automobiles) trying to sue every publisher of math textbooks for using their name without permission.

-Jeremy

ubertar · Post by **ubertar** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:15 am

I totally agree.

joelpatterson · Post by **joelpatterson** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:24 pm

And don't forget the Monster Mash!

I thought the "cherry cola" in "Lola" was because the BBC wouldn't play it with "Coca Cola," and instead of fighting a great First Amendment fight in a land without any first amendment they caved and changed it, I mean it's not like they were Robin Trower or somebody.

Message Board

Using a registed product in your song title?

Using a registed product in your song title?

Re: Using a registed product in your song title?

Re: Using a registed product in your song title?

Who is online