IMS Trademarks

[dwaldrep51]

It was pointed out today in Curt Cavin's "Ask the Expert" by Bob in Phoenix that "Gentlemen, Start Your Engines" is a registered trademark of Brickyard Trademarks, Inc.

That made me curious as to what else they have trademarked. I learned that IMS trademarks include:

- Little 500 (I suppose this means that they charge Anderson Speedway and IU for using "Little 500")

- Trackside (yes, the name used by NASCAR and Speed for that show that we all get tired of seeing on when we're looking for racing on TV - I hope IMS is getting money for that)

- and of course SAFER (I wonder if NASCAR knows that they don't have the rights to "SAFER"?)

The list I found is here if you want to see the whole list http://www.townofspeedway.org/townha...trademarks.htm

[frif20]

So when PJ Chesson got the Indy 500 race logo tatoo, did he have to pay any royalties to IMS???

[SpeedwayRyan]

So when PJ Chesson got the Indy 500 race logo tatoo, did he have to pay any royalties to IMS???

He got a (very badly done, by the way) tattoo, it's not like he sold t-shirts with the logo. You could go to a tattoo shop with a printout of any copyrighted image and get it tattooed on your arm, would you pay anyone royalties? Would you pay royalties if you drew a picture of the "500" logo on a piece of paper and didn't sell it to anyone? Of course not. IMS would want royalties if you're planning on reselling their intellectual property...but if you're not reselling it, there is no revenue to charge royalties on, and IMS is not missing out on any revenue.

Basically...um, no.

[drdisque]

Good to know that they trademarked "INDYCAS"

I can't tell you how many times I see bootleg "INDYCAS" shirts. When I buy my "INDYCAS" apparel, I need to know that it's authentic.

I think they need to also trademark "Indy Tacing League", "Vrickyard", and "Ondianapolis 500"

[SpeedwayRyan]

Good to know that they trademarked "INDYCAS"

I can't tell you how many times I see bootleg "INDYCAS" shirts. When I buy my "INDYCAS" apparel, I need to know that it's authentic.

I think they need to also trademark "Indy Tacing League", "Vrickyard", and "Ondianapolis 500"

I think you misread the word "INDYCAST." Like "broadcast."

[Joe in LA]

Interesting that they trademarked U.S. Grand Prix and United States Grand Prix, with and without "At Indianapolis" as a tag line. Suspect Bernie might put up a fight over that one if IMS tried to tell him he couldn't have a US Grand Prix elsewhere without writing IMS a check.

[CARTer]

He got a (very badly done, by the way) tattoo, it's not like he sold t-shirts with the logo. You could go to a tattoo shop with a printout of any copyrighted image and get it tattooed on your arm, would you pay anyone royalties? Would you pay royalties if you drew a picture of the "500" logo on a piece of paper and didn't sell it to anyone? Of course not. IMS would want royalties if you're planning on reselling their intellectual property...but if you're not reselling it, there is no revenue to charge royalties on, and IMS is not missing out on any revenue.

Basically...um, no.

If it is a federally registered trademark, then there is no need for the trademark owner to prove damages. Statutory damages are provided by federal law. It's been a while since I did trademark work, so I don't know the current level of damages that are presumed by law.

But, if you make unauthorized use of a federally registered trademark, you do so at your own risk. Even if it is a "non profit" use.

[Jakester]

He got a (very badly done, by the way) tattoo, it's not like he sold t-shirts with the logo. You could go to a tattoo shop with a printout of any copyrighted image and get it tattooed on your arm, would you pay anyone royalties? Would you pay royalties if you drew a picture of the "500" logo on a piece of paper and didn't sell it to anyone? Of course not. IMS would want royalties if you're planning on reselling their intellectual property...but if you're not reselling it, there is no revenue to charge royalties on, and IMS is not missing out on any revenue.

Basically...um, no.

I don't believe you are correct, per the below. It's not just the sale, it's the unapproved use of the trademark. Legally, Mr Chesson would need permission from Brickyard Trademarks to use the Indy logo as a tattoo. However, practical considerations would be that there would be little/no chance that Brickyard Trademarks would take it upon themselves to make the effort to block such usage.

You are notified by Indianapolis Motor Speedway, LLC (IMS) that you and your agents, employees and affiliates may not make, distribute or sell any services, goods (including but not limited to wearing apparel), advertising or signs which use or have affixed thereto, and may not otherwise use, any service mark or trademark owned or supervised by Brickyard Trademarks, Inc., IMS or its affiliates.

[frif20]

I don't believe you are correct, per the below. It's not just the sale, it's the unapproved use of the trademark. Legally, Mr Chesson would need permission from Brickyard Trademarks to use the Indy logo as a tattoo. However, practical considerations would be that there would be little/no chance that Brickyard Trademarks would take it upon themselves to make the effort to block such usage.

Jakester, that's more along the lines of what I was thinking. Not royalties, just to get it approved for placement on a person's skin.

[use2know]

He got a (very badly done, by the way) tattoo, it's not like he sold t-shirts with the logo. You could go to a tattoo shop with a printout of any copyrighted image and get it tattooed on your arm, would you pay anyone royalties? Would you pay royalties if you drew a picture of the "500" logo on a piece of paper and didn't sell it to anyone? Of course not. IMS would want royalties if you're planning on reselling their intellectual property...but if you're not reselling it, there is no revenue to charge royalties on, and IMS is not missing out on any revenue.

Basically...um, no.

Really.... Did PJ pay to have the Tat done....? Did the artist get the rights to re-create the image and make money off of the process....?

Technically, ANY reproduction of Copyrighted material without permission is a violation of Copyright law...

Now with that being said, I cannot recall any major legal action being taken against anyone over a tat... yet.

Just something for the "Inquiring minds" around here to kick around...

[SpeedwayRyan]

Exactly...I'm not talking about what's technically legal/not legal, I'm talking about what happens in reality. Only a company like Disney would sue over a tattoo

EDIT: And, in my opinion, the tattoo was so bad, PJ could make a case for it not being that similar to the logo anyway!

[Jakester]

There have been several cases of privately operated, non-profit websites either be asked or sued to remove trademarked logos and even similar 'parody' logos.

In general though, it's not worth pursuing.

Just one example Starbucks

[racermike]

IRL is already working overtime, telling those of us who have Champcar videos on Youtube that we are violating copyright laws.

I have ONE video, that I shot with MY camera, of a PKV car testing at Portland last year in the rain, and got notice 2 days ago from the IRL that I am violating a copyright, but for the time being, they are going to allow me to keep showing it.

I think the IRL needs to concentrate on trying to get american open wheel racing back in order, rather than worrying about Youtube videos.

Priorities are still way off.

[CARTer]

Keep in mind that there is a difference between copyright and trademark law. Copyright protects the rights of the creator of any "creative work fixed in a tangible medium of expression" (if I recall the language of the copyright act correctly).

Trademarks exist to protect the consumer regarding the source of goods and services. Because of trademark law, you know when you buy a can of Coke that what you are getting is a particulary cola-flavored beverage.

In this thread, the real risk lies with the tattoo artist if s/he isn't authorized to offer tattoo services by IMS and thereby commits a trademark infringement. Arguably, there could also be a copyright claim due to the unauthorized reproduction of the image itself.

And if you don't think that minor uses by a "little guy" get noticed - think again. I've been on both sides of cases where the trademark owner sought to stop a very, very minor use of a trademark - the kind of thing that might make an average person say, "Oh, come on ..."

But owners have the right to enforce their intellectual property rights. Here's an analogy. Say you own a classic Mustang ragtop, and on a sunny day have it parked in the driveway. A stranger drives up and sits down in it. He's clean, so he won't get the car dirty, and he doesn't want to drive it, so there is no chance of wear and tear or damage. He simply likes Mustangs and wants to sit in one for a while.

Most people might think the owner of the Mustang would be justified in making the stranger get out of his car and leave. Even though he wasn't hurting anything, the Mustang belongs to the owner and he can do (or not do) with it whatever he wants, 'cause it's his.

That's similar to trademark infringement. You may not be hurting anyone by having a trademarked logo tattooed on your arm. But it ain't your trademark, and the owner can stop you if s/he wants to.

[CARTer]

There have been several cases of privately operated, non-profit websites either be asked or sued to remove trademarked logos and even similar 'parody' logos.

In general though, it's not worth pursuing.

Just one example Starbucks

Parody is a protected form of speech under copyright law (thanks, in large part, to 2 Live Crew). But, because the function of copyright law and trademark law is different, it will depend on what you're doing with the mark.

If you don't like Starbucks, and you make a parody of the logo to express your dislike, then arguably you could be ok. But if you start selling merchandise with it you may be in for trouble.

There's also a legal theory called "tarnshiment", which applies when a reasonable consumer wouldn't confuse the unapproved use with the actual trademark owner, but the use nonetheless damages the "image" of the trademark.

Think about T-shirts that mimic the classic "Enjoy Coke" logo by saing "Enjoy Cocaine." That's a textbook case of tarnishment.

Wow, the more I think about it, the more I miss working in this kind of law.