Slim Shady vs. Swim Shady | Matt Connarton Unleashed

0:00 Speaker 1: You know, I love talking about branding and trademarks and copyright.

0:04 Speaker 1: I'm not an attorney, I'm not a legal expert of

0:06 Speaker 1: any kind. I do know a little bit about this stuff,

0:09 Speaker 1: just because of my experience in the music industry so

0:12 Speaker 1: and with podcasts and things. So I do know some.

0:16 Speaker 1: I do know a little bit. I know enough to

0:18 Speaker 1: have an opinion. For example, earlier when we were talking

0:21 Speaker 1: about the latest update on Taylor Swift being sued by

0:25 Speaker 1: Maren Flag over the trademark of you know, Maren Flagg

0:29 Speaker 1: has this podcast Confessions of a Showgirl. Taylor Swift has

0:33 Speaker 1: the album Life of a Showgirl, and so there is

0:36 Speaker 1: a legal battle that. Again I still can't believe it

0:38 Speaker 1: goes on, but it does. I think it's frivolous. But anyway,

0:42 Speaker 1: so I'm fascinated by all of these things. This I

0:46 Speaker 1: did not know about until today. I didn't know this

0:48 Speaker 1: one was going on. But this is interesting. This is

0:51 Speaker 1: another trademark situation. This is from Digitalmusicnews dot Com, one

0:55 Speaker 1: of my favorite websites for music industry news. Sydney beats

1:00 Speaker 1: brand beats eminem in legal battle over swim Shady trademark. Okay,

1:06 Speaker 1: so they've been using this trademark. This company swim Shady.

1:09 Speaker 1: It says here Sidney Beach brand swim Shady has secured

1:14 Speaker 1: a trademark victory against rapper Eminem, who argued the company's

1:18 Speaker 1: name was too similar to his alter ego. Says here, Well,

1:24 Speaker 1: the real swim Shady please stand up. The Sydney Beach

1:28 Speaker 1: brand won a major victory in the trademark fight against

1:31 Speaker 1: rapper Eminem, who argued that the company's name was too

1:34 Speaker 1: similar to his established branding and longtime alter ego, slim Shady.

1:40 Speaker 1: Now the Australian Registrar of Trademarks has narrowed the scope

1:46 Speaker 1: of the musician's claim. On Wednesday, the IP Australia Delegate

1:51 Speaker 1: IP for Intellectual Property. The IP Australia Delegate determined that

1:56 Speaker 1: his existing trademarks had not been significantly used across Australia.

2:01 Speaker 1: Evidence showed that Eminem's existing Australian trademarks for Shady and

2:07 Speaker 1: Shady Limited hadn't been genuinely used across a range of

2:11 Speaker 1: merchandise categories including clothing, bags and footwear during the relevant period. Moreover,

2:20 Speaker 1: evidence further showed that there had been only three recent

2:23 Speaker 1: sales of Shady merch to customers in Australia during that period.

2:29 Speaker 1: The Delegate also found that there were insufficient evidence that

2:33 Speaker 1: Eminem exercise the level of control over the Australian sale

2:36 Speaker 1: of merch required to maintain trademark protection in these specific categories.

2:41 Speaker 1: That brings up an interesting question that I want to

2:44 Speaker 1: circle back to. Something about this I've always wondered, and

2:47 Speaker 1: again we're talking about this is you know, the laws

2:50 Speaker 1: in Australia are not the laws here. But there's a

2:52 Speaker 1: broad question that I've been thinking about when it comes

2:55 Speaker 1: to trademarks. But we'll come back to that, so more

2:58 Speaker 1: to this again. This is from Digitalmusicnews dot Com. As

3:03 Speaker 1: a result, the Shady and Shady Limited trademarks will now

3:07 Speaker 1: be removed from several merch categories, thereby allowing swim Shady

3:12 Speaker 1: to continue selling under its existing brand. The main issue

3:16 Speaker 1: at hand is the timing. Eminem has long been known

3:19 Speaker 1: by his slim Shady moniker, but he did not register

3:23 Speaker 1: Slimshady as an Australian trademark in the country until after

3:27 Speaker 1: swim Shady launched its own business. Ah swim Shady founders

3:36 Speaker 1: Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Africof said quote. While this is

3:41 Speaker 1: an important milestone for swim Shady, it is one step

3:44 Speaker 1: in the broader trademark proceedings, and we recognize there are

3:48 Speaker 1: still matters to be resolved unquote. Indeed, the Australian ruling

3:52 Speaker 1: is just one part of the broader dispute. Eminem is

3:56 Speaker 1: also opposed swim Shady's trademark in several jurisdictions, including the

4:01 Speaker 1: United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. Meanwhile, his legal

4:05 Speaker 1: team has until July twenty second to appeal the decision

4:08 Speaker 1: in Australia. It's just the latest ruling in a series

4:11 Speaker 1: of high profile trademark disputes, including Katy Perry's battle against

4:15 Speaker 1: Sydney designer Katy Perry and Taylor Swift's fight against a

4:19 Speaker 1: real life showgirl. That's the story of the Taylor Swift thing,

4:22 Speaker 1: is what we talked about earlier. I did not know

4:26 Speaker 1: so Katy Perry, I guess I'm gonna have to click

4:30 Speaker 1: that link because now I'm curious. We'll go down that

4:32 Speaker 1: rabbit hole. So I guess Katy Perry has been in

4:34 Speaker 1: some sort of legal battle with a designer from Sydney,

4:37 Speaker 1: Australia named Katy Perry. Uh oh, so this springs the

4:42 Speaker 1: question that I always wonder about with this stuff. Let's

4:45 Speaker 1: go back a little bit, and again I understand Australian

4:48 Speaker 1: laws different than in the United States, but let's see

4:55 Speaker 1: okay this paragraph here. Moreover, evidence further showed that there

4:59 Speaker 1: had been only three sales of shady merch to customers

5:02 Speaker 1: in Australia during that period. The Delegate also found that

5:05 Speaker 1: there was insufficient evidence that EMINEM had exercised the level

5:08 Speaker 1: of control over the Australian sale of merch required to

5:12 Speaker 1: maintain trademark protection in the specific categories. So it raises

5:17 Speaker 1: the question. This is something I've always wondered about. What

5:19 Speaker 1: if someone trademarks something, They trademark a name, and then

5:22 Speaker 1: they just never do anything with it, so they own

5:25 Speaker 1: the trademark and then they just they just park it.

5:30 Speaker 1: I don't know if that would be the right term.

5:32 Speaker 1: We use that term when it comes to website domains.

5:34 Speaker 1: You know, if you buy a web domain and you

5:37 Speaker 1: and you park it, you just you don't do anything

5:39 Speaker 1: with it. You just own it because you want to

5:41 Speaker 1: own it. In case somebody needs it, they're gonna have

5:43 Speaker 1: to pay you for it. What's to prevent people from

5:46 Speaker 1: doing that with trademarks? Is there anything to prevent people

5:50 Speaker 1: from doing that with trademarks? If you just think of

5:52 Speaker 1: something that's a cool name and you find out nobody

5:54 Speaker 1: has it yet, and you say, I'm going to trademark that,

5:56 Speaker 1: So if somebody wants to use that, they're gonna have

5:58 Speaker 1: to come to me for it, or I'm going to

6:00 Speaker 1: get some sort of some sort of money from that.

6:05 Speaker 1: What's to prevent people from doing that? And I don't know.

6:10 Speaker 1: Apparently in the Australia system of doing this, there is

6:15 Speaker 1: sort of a safeguard built in against people being able

6:17 Speaker 1: to do that because if you buy a trademark, but

6:20 Speaker 1: then you're not using it. So in other words, Eminem,

6:23 Speaker 1: after the swim Shady brand launched Eminem, his legal team

6:28 Speaker 1: went ahead and filed this trademark in Australia, right retroactively

6:35 Speaker 1: in effect, right, but if they're not doing anything with it,

6:41 Speaker 1: and they're not going to do anything with it, I mean,

6:43 Speaker 1: it's almost a form of harassment in a way. Now,

6:48 Speaker 1: the way that Eminem's legal team probably argues it is

6:51 Speaker 1: they would say, well, if it were not for slim Shady,

6:56 Speaker 1: there would be no swim Shady because obviously the point

7:00 Speaker 1: of the name swim shady, that's a play on the

7:03 Speaker 1: name slim shady, right, swomen's slim rhyme, and it's you know,

7:07 Speaker 1: it's not hard to figure out. In other words, if

7:09 Speaker 1: Eminem had never used the slim Shady alter ego and

7:13 Speaker 1: use that name, the swim Shady brand would not exist.

7:17 Speaker 1: They would have called it something else, right, So that's

7:22 Speaker 1: probably how Eminem's legal team argues it and why it's

7:26 Speaker 1: trademark infringement. But it sounds like in Australia, if you

7:29 Speaker 1: own a trademark but then you're not using it, you're

7:32 Speaker 1: just parking it. Again, I don't know if that's the

7:34 Speaker 1: term when it comes to trademarks. You can't just claim

7:36 Speaker 1: it in perpetuity that your trademark is being infringed upon.

7:39 Speaker 1: And again I don't know if if the US Patent Office,

7:45 Speaker 1: for example, treats that the same way. I don't know

7:48 Speaker 1: if they do. I hope that they do, because I

7:51 Speaker 1: think that they should, because you shouldn't be able to

7:54 Speaker 1: just buy a trademark just to have it and then

7:56 Speaker 1: never do anything with it, and then be able to

8:00 Speaker 1: sue somebody because they're using it, especially if because I

8:05 Speaker 1: assume the swim Shady trademark was approved by Australia's what

8:11 Speaker 1: is it IP delegate, right, so now they're using it.

8:16 Speaker 1: You don't just you know, if you're a big company

8:19 Speaker 1: like that, you're not just going to you know, like

8:23 Speaker 1: a big swimwear company or whatever. You're not just going

8:26 Speaker 1: to start using a trademark without being sure that you

8:28 Speaker 1: can legally right anyway. So I've just always that's something

8:32 Speaker 1: I've always wondered about. What's to stop people from abusing

8:35 Speaker 1: the trademark system. It's not that expensive. I know because

8:39 Speaker 1: I've done it. It's not that expensive to file for

8:41 Speaker 1: a trademark. So what's to prevent someone from just buying

8:46 Speaker 1: up lots and lots of trademarks that they think someone's

8:48 Speaker 1: going to want to use. Or if you have knowledge

8:53 Speaker 1: almost like insider trading, although that's definitely not the right

8:56 Speaker 1: term in this I don't know what the term would

8:57 Speaker 1: be here, but if you have knowledge that somebody is

9:01 Speaker 1: going to be wanting to trademark something potentially, and you

9:06 Speaker 1: have some sort of insider knowledge about that, and you say, oh,

9:09 Speaker 1: I'm gonna go, I'm gonna run and register this trademark. Now,

9:12 Speaker 1: I do know in the US Trademark and Patent Office

9:19 Speaker 1: they don't. They don't just they don't just give out

9:23 Speaker 1: trademarks like candy. You do have to supply some documentation.

9:27 Speaker 1: But again, what's to prevent someone from just kind of

9:31 Speaker 1: doing that frivolously and presenting that they have the intentions

9:35 Speaker 1: of using this trademark for something, but then in the

9:38 Speaker 1: end they don't use it, They're just parking it. So

9:41 Speaker 1: that's something I wonder about. Now I am I wasn't

9:44 Speaker 1: planning on doing this, but now I'm curious. I'm going

9:47 Speaker 1: to click this and see what this Katie Perry thing

9:51 Speaker 1: is all about. So apparently, oh, this happened back in

9:54 Speaker 1: April and twenty twenty three, so this is not recent news,

9:57 Speaker 1: but I do think it's relevant. So and that's what

10:00 Speaker 1: they included the link in the article. So I'm just

10:01 Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and look at this. This is from

10:03 Speaker 1: Digital Music News dot com. Katie Perry beats Katie Perry

10:06 Speaker 1: in a David and Goliath trademark battle, saying this is

10:09 Speaker 1: a win for small business. Ah okay, all right, So

10:13 Speaker 1: singer Katy Perry has lost a trademark lawsuit by Australian

10:17 Speaker 1: fashion designer Katie Perry. Katie Perry sued the pop star

10:21 Speaker 1: for allegedly infringing the designer's trademark with her merchandise. Oh interesting, okay,

10:26 Speaker 1: So on Friday April twenty eight, and again keep in

10:28 Speaker 1: mind this is a few years ago, Justice Bridget Markovic

10:34 Speaker 1: or Markovic ruled that clothing sold during Katy Perry's twenty

10:38 Speaker 1: fourteen Australia tour breached designer and small business owner Katie

10:41 Speaker 1: Perry's trademark, Katie's company Kitty Purry, must pay damages to

10:47 Speaker 1: Katie Katie, the Australian designer, apparently, the amount of which

10:52 Speaker 1: will be determined in May. So we won't go through

10:55 Speaker 1: the whole thing because again it's old news. It's from

10:56 Speaker 1: a few years ago. But that's an example of but

11:00 Speaker 1: again this. Oh and they do spell them differently by

11:04 Speaker 1: the way, So Katie Perry, the Australian designer spells it

11:08 Speaker 1: k A T I E. And of course, uh, Katy

11:11 Speaker 1: Perry spells it. You know, the singer calls it, spells

11:14 Speaker 1: it k A T y Okay,