Field Dispatch
Slim Shady vs. Swim Shady | Matt Connarton Unleashed
Speaker 1: You know, I love talking about branding and trademarks and copyright.
Speaker 1: I'm not an attorney, I'm not a legal expert of
Speaker 1: any kind. I do know a little bit about this stuff,
Speaker 1: just because of my experience in the music industry so
Speaker 1: and with podcasts and things. So I do know some.
Speaker 1: I do know a little bit. I know enough to
Speaker 1: have an opinion. For example, earlier when we were talking
Speaker 1: about the latest update on Taylor Swift being sued by
Speaker 1: Maren Flag over the trademark of you know, Maren Flagg
Speaker 1: has this podcast Confessions of a Showgirl. Taylor Swift has
Speaker 1: the album Life of a Showgirl, and so there is
Speaker 1: a legal battle that. Again I still can't believe it
Speaker 1: goes on, but it does. I think it's frivolous. But anyway,
Speaker 1: so I'm fascinated by all of these things. This I
Speaker 1: did not know about until today. I didn't know this
Speaker 1: one was going on. But this is interesting. This is
Speaker 1: another trademark situation. This is from Digitalmusicnews dot Com, one
Speaker 1: of my favorite websites for music industry news. Sydney beats
Speaker 1: brand beats eminem in legal battle over swim Shady trademark. Okay,
Speaker 1: so they've been using this trademark. This company swim Shady.
Speaker 1: It says here Sidney Beach brand swim Shady has secured
Speaker 1: a trademark victory against rapper Eminem, who argued the company's
Speaker 1: name was too similar to his alter ego. Says here, Well,
Speaker 1: the real swim Shady please stand up. The Sydney Beach
Speaker 1: brand won a major victory in the trademark fight against
Speaker 1: rapper Eminem, who argued that the company's name was too
Speaker 1: similar to his established branding and longtime alter ego, slim Shady.
Speaker 1: Now the Australian Registrar of Trademarks has narrowed the scope
Speaker 1: of the musician's claim. On Wednesday, the IP Australia Delegate
Speaker 1: IP for Intellectual Property. The IP Australia Delegate determined that
Speaker 1: his existing trademarks had not been significantly used across Australia.
Speaker 1: Evidence showed that Eminem's existing Australian trademarks for Shady and
Speaker 1: Shady Limited hadn't been genuinely used across a range of
Speaker 1: merchandise categories including clothing, bags and footwear during the relevant period. Moreover,
Speaker 1: evidence further showed that there had been only three recent
Speaker 1: sales of Shady merch to customers in Australia during that period.
Speaker 1: The Delegate also found that there were insufficient evidence that
Speaker 1: Eminem exercise the level of control over the Australian sale
Speaker 1: of merch required to maintain trademark protection in these specific categories.
Speaker 1: That brings up an interesting question that I want to
Speaker 1: circle back to. Something about this I've always wondered, and
Speaker 1: again we're talking about this is you know, the laws
Speaker 1: in Australia are not the laws here. But there's a
Speaker 1: broad question that I've been thinking about when it comes
Speaker 1: to trademarks. But we'll come back to that, so more
Speaker 1: to this again. This is from Digitalmusicnews dot Com. As
Speaker 1: a result, the Shady and Shady Limited trademarks will now
Speaker 1: be removed from several merch categories, thereby allowing swim Shady
Speaker 1: to continue selling under its existing brand. The main issue
Speaker 1: at hand is the timing. Eminem has long been known
Speaker 1: by his slim Shady moniker, but he did not register
Speaker 1: Slimshady as an Australian trademark in the country until after
Speaker 1: swim Shady launched its own business. Ah swim Shady founders
Speaker 1: Jeremy Scott and Elizabeth Africof said quote. While this is
Speaker 1: an important milestone for swim Shady, it is one step
Speaker 1: in the broader trademark proceedings, and we recognize there are
Speaker 1: still matters to be resolved unquote. Indeed, the Australian ruling
Speaker 1: is just one part of the broader dispute. Eminem is
Speaker 1: also opposed swim Shady's trademark in several jurisdictions, including the
Speaker 1: United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. Meanwhile, his legal
Speaker 1: team has until July twenty second to appeal the decision
Speaker 1: in Australia. It's just the latest ruling in a series
Speaker 1: of high profile trademark disputes, including Katy Perry's battle against
Speaker 1: Sydney designer Katy Perry and Taylor Swift's fight against a
Speaker 1: real life showgirl. That's the story of the Taylor Swift thing,
Speaker 1: is what we talked about earlier. I did not know
Speaker 1: so Katy Perry, I guess I'm gonna have to click
Speaker 1: that link because now I'm curious. We'll go down that
Speaker 1: rabbit hole. So I guess Katy Perry has been in
Speaker 1: some sort of legal battle with a designer from Sydney,
Speaker 1: Australia named Katy Perry. Uh oh, so this springs the
Speaker 1: question that I always wonder about with this stuff. Let's
Speaker 1: go back a little bit, and again I understand Australian
Speaker 1: laws different than in the United States, but let's see
Speaker 1: okay this paragraph here. Moreover, evidence further showed that there
Speaker 1: had been only three sales of shady merch to customers
Speaker 1: in Australia during that period. The Delegate also found that
Speaker 1: there was insufficient evidence that EMINEM had exercised the level
Speaker 1: of control over the Australian sale of merch required to
Speaker 1: maintain trademark protection in the specific categories. So it raises
Speaker 1: the question. This is something I've always wondered about. What
Speaker 1: if someone trademarks something, They trademark a name, and then
Speaker 1: they just never do anything with it, so they own
Speaker 1: the trademark and then they just they just park it.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that would be the right term.
Speaker 1: We use that term when it comes to website domains.
Speaker 1: You know, if you buy a web domain and you
Speaker 1: and you park it, you just you don't do anything
Speaker 1: with it. You just own it because you want to
Speaker 1: own it. In case somebody needs it, they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to pay you for it. What's to prevent people from
Speaker 1: doing that with trademarks? Is there anything to prevent people
Speaker 1: from doing that with trademarks? If you just think of
Speaker 1: something that's a cool name and you find out nobody
Speaker 1: has it yet, and you say, I'm going to trademark that,
Speaker 1: So if somebody wants to use that, they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to come to me for it, or I'm going to
Speaker 1: get some sort of some sort of money from that.
Speaker 1: What's to prevent people from doing that? And I don't know.
Speaker 1: Apparently in the Australia system of doing this, there is
Speaker 1: sort of a safeguard built in against people being able
Speaker 1: to do that because if you buy a trademark, but
Speaker 1: then you're not using it. So in other words, Eminem,
Speaker 1: after the swim Shady brand launched Eminem, his legal team
Speaker 1: went ahead and filed this trademark in Australia, right retroactively
Speaker 1: in effect, right, but if they're not doing anything with it,
Speaker 1: and they're not going to do anything with it, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's almost a form of harassment in a way. Now,
Speaker 1: the way that Eminem's legal team probably argues it is
Speaker 1: they would say, well, if it were not for slim Shady,
Speaker 1: there would be no swim Shady because obviously the point
Speaker 1: of the name swim shady, that's a play on the
Speaker 1: name slim shady, right, swomen's slim rhyme, and it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's not hard to figure out. In other words, if
Speaker 1: Eminem had never used the slim Shady alter ego and
Speaker 1: use that name, the swim Shady brand would not exist.
Speaker 1: They would have called it something else, right, So that's
Speaker 1: probably how Eminem's legal team argues it and why it's
Speaker 1: trademark infringement. But it sounds like in Australia, if you
Speaker 1: own a trademark but then you're not using it, you're
Speaker 1: just parking it. Again, I don't know if that's the
Speaker 1: term when it comes to trademarks. You can't just claim
Speaker 1: it in perpetuity that your trademark is being infringed upon.
Speaker 1: And again I don't know if if the US Patent Office,
Speaker 1: for example, treats that the same way. I don't know
Speaker 1: if they do. I hope that they do, because I
Speaker 1: think that they should, because you shouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: just buy a trademark just to have it and then
Speaker 1: never do anything with it, and then be able to
Speaker 1: sue somebody because they're using it, especially if because I
Speaker 1: assume the swim Shady trademark was approved by Australia's what
Speaker 1: is it IP delegate, right, so now they're using it.
Speaker 1: You don't just you know, if you're a big company
Speaker 1: like that, you're not just going to you know, like
Speaker 1: a big swimwear company or whatever. You're not just going
Speaker 1: to start using a trademark without being sure that you
Speaker 1: can legally right anyway. So I've just always that's something
Speaker 1: I've always wondered about. What's to stop people from abusing
Speaker 1: the trademark system. It's not that expensive. I know because
Speaker 1: I've done it. It's not that expensive to file for
Speaker 1: a trademark. So what's to prevent someone from just buying
Speaker 1: up lots and lots of trademarks that they think someone's
Speaker 1: going to want to use. Or if you have knowledge
Speaker 1: almost like insider trading, although that's definitely not the right
Speaker 1: term in this I don't know what the term would
Speaker 1: be here, but if you have knowledge that somebody is
Speaker 1: going to be wanting to trademark something potentially, and you
Speaker 1: have some sort of insider knowledge about that, and you say, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go, I'm gonna run and register this trademark. Now,
Speaker 1: I do know in the US Trademark and Patent Office
Speaker 1: they don't. They don't just they don't just give out
Speaker 1: trademarks like candy. You do have to supply some documentation.
Speaker 1: But again, what's to prevent someone from just kind of
Speaker 1: doing that frivolously and presenting that they have the intentions
Speaker 1: of using this trademark for something, but then in the
Speaker 1: end they don't use it, They're just parking it. So
Speaker 1: that's something I wonder about. Now I am I wasn't
Speaker 1: planning on doing this, but now I'm curious. I'm going
Speaker 1: to click this and see what this Katie Perry thing
Speaker 1: is all about. So apparently, oh, this happened back in
Speaker 1: April and twenty twenty three, so this is not recent news,
Speaker 1: but I do think it's relevant. So and that's what
Speaker 1: they included the link in the article. So I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and look at this. This is from
Speaker 1: Digital Music News dot com. Katie Perry beats Katie Perry
Speaker 1: in a David and Goliath trademark battle, saying this is
Speaker 1: a win for small business. Ah okay, all right, So
Speaker 1: singer Katy Perry has lost a trademark lawsuit by Australian
Speaker 1: fashion designer Katie Perry. Katie Perry sued the pop star
Speaker 1: for allegedly infringing the designer's trademark with her merchandise. Oh interesting, okay,
Speaker 1: So on Friday April twenty eight, and again keep in
Speaker 1: mind this is a few years ago, Justice Bridget Markovic
Speaker 1: or Markovic ruled that clothing sold during Katy Perry's twenty
Speaker 1: fourteen Australia tour breached designer and small business owner Katie
Speaker 1: Perry's trademark, Katie's company Kitty Purry, must pay damages to
Speaker 1: Katie Katie, the Australian designer, apparently, the amount of which
Speaker 1: will be determined in May. So we won't go through
Speaker 1: the whole thing because again it's old news. It's from
Speaker 1: a few years ago. But that's an example of but
Speaker 1: again this. Oh and they do spell them differently by
Speaker 1: the way, So Katie Perry, the Australian designer spells it
Speaker 1: k A T I E. And of course, uh, Katy
Speaker 1: Perry spells it. You know, the singer calls it, spells
Speaker 1: it k A T y Okay,
Podbean