Secrets of the City

no

Good thing Al didn’t go making any “Current TV” t-shirts…

no, but the current tv network needs new programming. bad.

Is there no end to the arrogance of MPR? Think of how many Times, Tribunes, Suns, etc. newspapers there are. In fact, there are Current newspapers in Minnesota–here long before MPR thought of using the name. I think the Current papers have got a great suit, and I hope they pursue it. There’s nothing I’d rather see than Bill Kling dangling from his own petard…with his huge salary drizzling out of his bulging pockets and falling onto the little people who buy his bullshit and pony up for MPR memberships.

Shame.

Oh this is going to be mean…pre-apologies…I like what 89.3 brings to the music market, but…
Maybe “The Current” (89.3) is trying to supplement their incessant begging for cash with lawsuits. Sorry, Sorry! I am a fan of the content on 89.3 and MPR in general, but I abhor their constant begging. In between songs I would much rather listen to commercials than begging. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but I do enjoy the community radio feel of 89.3, but I just wish they could find a delicate balance between begging and fund raising. Am I alone on this? Maybe?

Sorry forgot the link to the Kling salary story from the Strib.

Wow CFKC, thanks for typing faster than me and getting your comment up there as I was typing! You make my post not seem so harsh. Though I am not as outraged as you are, I think you criticism has some merit.

Haven’t seen the lawsuit yet, but on first blush I think I agree with you two. This does seem ridiculous.

Rex, I think it’s time you brought back the shirts. Except this time, shorten the slogan to just plain “Prairie Ho.” I’ll take one in XL, please.

Just remember, next time you’re thinking of real community radio for your contributions, think KBEM Jazz 88.5. And the next time you feel like crapping on Clear Channel, remember it was Clear Channel who made an emergency donation to keep KBEM on the air last year when their funding was cut…not MPR.

Gee, I can hardly wait to see this thread on gather.com.

So if MPR has a valid, registered trademark for “The Current,” (which no one has questioned) and if it needs to enforce the mark to keep it (which it does, under U.S. law), then it … shouldn’t … because why, exactly? C’mon. This is trademark 101, kids.

Trademarks are supposed to prevent confusion as to the source of goods and services. If “Current TV” and “Current Radio” are both on the interweb — and if this link works, the local people seem intent on an internet presence — it isn’t hard to imagine how confusion could take place.

Well, the link stopped working, but it was to the MPR trademark: “entertainment services, namely, a series of shows relating to music, culture, news, the arts and information distributed over the media of radio and via a global computer network.” Given the likelihood of convergence, it makes sense to protect the mark.

BTW, this may be the first straight-faced discussion of an article from the NY Sun in the history of the internet. I’d never read it before, but it completely lived up to its reputation with the accusation that Current TV is biased against Israel.

What are you guys talking about? Al Gore can throw an online tantrum, make a few veiled threats about his pretend ability to create bad press for MPR, get a wikipedia footnote and some free publicity, then roll over to some weak cease and desist order or lawsuit threat, all the while claiming to be new media, or whatever…

Haven’t seen that before.

Actually, as CFKC noted above, the law isn’t as clear as mike s seems to think. For example Chicago Reader sued Twin Cities Reader many years ago about trademark infringement, when there was clear cause for confusion, (in fact, Twin Cities Reader was intentionally causing the confusion) and Chicago Reader lost.

The trademark office should not have given broad trademark protection to MPR for The Current. The convergence argument doesn’t hold much water, with sites like this one and this one and this one.

Will MPR next go after any radio station that refers to their news programs as Current Affairs? Will they be suing Fox, the owner of the Current Affair TV program.

I’d like to see Kling take on Rupert Murdoch. The pretender vs. the real thing. That would be funny. And short. And bloody.

Here is a copy of the Amended Complaint.

I am always struck by the knee-jerk reaction on the Internet to any company ever enforcing it’s intellectual property rights.

Thanks, Bietz’s Friend Pete. I was in the midst of writing a response, but the amended complaint is interesting and probably speaks for itself. This doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me.

This is such BS. “The Current” and “Current TV” are two totally different things. Get a grip MPR. Are you going to sue NPR next because it’s one letter off from your name?

I agree w/ MPR. If I tune in to “89.3, the current” via the internet and I live in California (HQ of Gore’s network) – is it feasible to think that “89.3, the current” is owned by Gore? Maybe. Why are they named the same – is Gore part owner? (Of course.. no.. but does it introduce some confusion? Yes.)

Overall, Gore’s team were idiots to launch with the name “current” well after “89.3 the current” had been established. It’s annoying that MPR needs to defend its trademark from infringement by someone who is likely a public radio supporter.

Just to be clear.. the official name of Gore’s gig is “Current” — not “Current TV.” Check the FAQ.

I am always struck by the knee-jerk reaction on the Internet to any company ever enforcing it’s intellectual property rights.

So, Bietz’s Friend Pete, just to be clear, you wouldn’t have any trouble with the Sun-Current newspapers, or the San Antonio Current, who are both information purveyors on the internet, suing MPR?

I’d just like to announce that The Rake (TM) has just come to an amicable settlement with Home Depot. Home Depot will no longer be selling our trademarked named product, but will now be offering “Toothed Garden Implements.”

We are, however, still negotiating with the estate of William Hogarth.

Slim, if someone started a newspaper called “San Antonio Current,” I would expect the current holders of the mark to attempt to enforce it.

The Sun-Current newspapers are more complicated, because they use lots of combinations of the words Sun, Current, Sailor, etc. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see them take action if Joe Shmoe tried to start a Sun-Current or Sun-Sailor newspaper in the TC burbs. But they don’t use “Current,” by itself, for the same services as the MPR or Gore ventures, so I don’t think they’re really apposite.

Given my track record in these matters, it’s completely predictable for me to call this complete bullshit… but it’s complete bullshit.

Now that that’s over, it makes me curious: why exactly does MPR want to do this? Do they really believe that a tv station out of San Fran that no one watches here is really going to dillute their brand or lead to confusion? Seriously, I highly doubt it. Is it to drain some licensing fees? I doubt that too. So here’s me floating another idea: MPR is doing this because “The Current” is a chain concept that might be applied in many other markets, in which case it actually could start leading to confusion. (It’s no secret that The Current wants to spread within the state… but maybe it wants to spread big-time?)

This is just a theory.

Perhaps KFAI could sue anybody who uses the words “fresh air” and make a little money for a truly eclectic, volunteer-run local treasure.

Ridiculous. I love my MPR, and I love the Current, but there is no way anyone would mix up the two entities. And I hate to think that frivilous lawsuits is what my monthly donation is going to (that and Kling’s half a million dollar salary). How embarrassing. They’re probably just doing it for reverse psychology–”see, we’re not partial to democrats–we sued Al Gore!”

Interesting … has anyone actually red the complaint instead of ASSUMING what they think the lawsuit is about? I think someone here linked to it already, but you can click HERE to read it.

Go ahead … I’ll wait.

Read the complaint.

…

Ok. Continue commenting. It’s not about Mine vs Yours, it’s about intentional marketing to the same audiences as MPR’s The Current in order to cause confusion. If Current TV had not: 1) Changed it’s name after The Current was established nor 2) Marketed the same audience base as MPR, there would be no complaint filed.

Also, Current TV was given plenty of time to respond before this compalint (from April to February. You tell me if you have enough time to read a memo).

I’m not about frivelous lawsuits (unless I want to laugh with the rest of the world) but I would be upset if someone was trying to confuse my audience base.

SKP: I read it. Then I linked to it. Then I called it bullshit.

mike s, I too read the complaint. And, I agree with Rex. MPR wants to take over the world. One has only to look at the Prairie Ho t-shirt flap to know what they are about. This is the same thing. MPR is a predatory business masquerading as a public service. They use their financial muscle to bully people. Rex was clearly and legally in the right, but the threat of a long, expensive lawsuit had the desired chilling effect.

Oddly, the only person who has been able to stand up to them is that equally litigious bastion of free speech (as long as it’s not satirizing me) Garrison Keillor. Wonder why you are hearing so many Fitzgerald Theater ads on MPR. Do you think it’s because they lost their biggest client?

As for me, the current’s been off my car buttons for a while now. Gimme KFAI and KBEM anyday. Not as slick, not as fucking pretentious.

The problem with your rant, Slim, is that it has nothing to do with the merits of the claim. It isn’t a defense to a trademark-infringement action to claim that the plaintiff wants to “take over the world” or that it is a “predatory business masquerading as a public service” or that it uses its “financial muscle to bully people.” That’s pretty much irrelevant.

As for the Rex issue, you might want to go back and re-read the thread. That was GK, nor MPR.

You think, based on a complaint that they filed for trademark infringement, that MPR is bent on world domination? You seriously overestimate the power of a trademark.

They use their financial muscle to bully people

You think that Al Gore has the resources to put a cable channel together, but not to respond to a lawsuit? MPR is not going to “bully” them. The difference between this suit, and the C & D sent to Rex is night and day.

I make no claims about the merit of the lawsuit, because trademark is a complex, fact-driven, area of law. I don’t think that you have enough information to make the proclamations on the merits you are making.

There are two issues here: can they file a lawsuit and should they file a lawsuit. I suspect some of the MPR vitriol (including mine) is directed toward the should. I fucking hate this litigating culture. The only thing I hate more is the moronic pursuit of brand influence. This case has both of ‘em.

As to the can, I also think this is complex. Complex bullshit.

Well said Rex; it is the should that is troubling. Here is my question…how does this lawsuit help them achieve their stated mission? Have they “enrich(ed) the mind and nourish(ed) the spirit” of anyone here? I think it is fair for people to question the objectives of a radio station that is propped up by our donations.

The difference between can and should is the crux of many, many problems: talking on cell phone while driving, reclining your seat on an airplane, invading countries, etc.

I have yet to read an articulation of why MPR should not enforce it’s IP rights. I have read claims that it’s “bullshit” or some sort of plot for world domination. Those are claims, not arguments.

Trademarks protect consumers from confusion, and protect the goodwill that a business builds up in its services. Even though MPR is a non-profit, it like any other corporation, is entitled to its protection. Once you concede that MPR can bring the suit (i.e., they own a trademark which Gore et al are infringing on), then you must concede that they should bring the suit. After all what good is a right that cannot be enforced?

Here are the three arguments of why this case is “bullshit”:

(1) MPR does not own a trademark in CURRENT;
(2) Gore et al are not infringing; or
(3) Trademarks are inherently bad.

You cannot possibly argue #1; there is not enough information (one way or another) to pass judgement on #2; and, #3 is sexy to say, but usually by people who just want to ignore other’s property rights. If #3 is your argument fine, but what’s your alternative?

If we’re going to address the can, then yes, we’d have to propose evidence either way regarding the infringement. Ultimately, I think it’s preposterous to argue brand dillution here — but equally preposterous examples have been argued in the past.

All of that is besides the point. This is the perfect enunciation of a lawyer’s perspective that, quite frankly, is destroying our culture:

“Once you concede that MPR can bring the suit[...], then you must concede that they should bring the suit.”

There are occasional lawyers out there (Lessig and others) who are fighting this bullshit, but it still passes as acceptable thinking for most people who can’t imagine a culture with fewer litigants.

Rex, I can understand your distaste for trademark holders who use their marks to squelch criticism and parody, but that doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here. This is aimed at a competitor, allegedly offering similar services in the same channels and markets. Reading paragraphs 23-30 of the complaint, it’s hard to imagine why they “should not” enforce their rights.

Also, unless I’ve missed something, I really doubt that Larry Lessig would have any problem with this sort of lawsuit. I could imagine him critiquing its merits, but I’d be shocked to learn he has a fundamental disagreement with this sort of litigation.

Question for IP Attorney: if a newspaper has trademark rights to the name Current, do they have a course of action against MPR?

The mission: “The mission of Minnesota Public Radio regionally and American Public Media nationally is to enrich the mind and nourish the spirit, thereby enhancing the lives and expanding the perspectives of our audiences, and assisting them in strengthening their communities.” (This doesn’t specifiy Minnesota-only audiences…)

Rex – I agree with your theory regarding the long-term interests of expanding The Current to a national audience, and/or expanding the Current to other types of media (podcasts, video-on-demand, etc…) From a long-term business perspective, the suit is a no-brainer. They need to defend the trademark.

First Slim,

Question for IP Attorney: if a newspaper has trademark rights to the name Current, do they have a course of action against MPR?

You have not given me enough information to render an opinion on your hypothetical. Determination of infringement of a trademark rests on whether there is a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion is determined by weighing a number of factors, and your hypothetical does not address any of them.

Rex:

Calling something “bullshit” is not an argument. In fact it is a fallacy called “prejudical language”. The burden is on you to articulate the alternative. Heck, I don’t subscribe to the “must zealously enforce your trademark” school. I think that it is wasteful of the client’s resources. But there are instances where there is a real likelihood of confusion, and that confusion does hurt consumers.

Again, I make no claim that this is one of those instances. (I don’t have enough facts). But catagorical rejection of legal rights must have an alternative. You don’t even really articulate a harm to enforcing a legitimate trademark rights. You just say “it hurts our culture.” Again, that’s a) a claim; and b) (by itself) a fallacy. You have to explain why?

Finally, Lawrence Lessing is not the be-all-end-all of analyzing a trademark dispute. I don’t think that he actually says “abolish trademarks.” He does say, and I agree, that the law must come up to date with technology. Again, why does that critique apply to this situation?

Argh. So, by this logic, if Al Gore had snagged the name a month earlier, all of you would be on his side, because of the obvious need for him to protect his trademark… because we’d all be confused if we were listening to local radio or watching cable tv?

I give up.

From the Strib article about this:

Mike Janssen, associate editor of the Current Newspaper, a broadcasting trade journal, seemed bemused by the squabble.

“I can’t recall of any other suits like this in public broadcasting,” he said. “But it’s unusual for a public station to be branded that way,” with a name instead of call letters or numbers.

As for his own publication’s name, Janssen said “we were ‘Current’ long before they were ‘Current.’” No law suits are planned, however.

Well Luke, it looks like Mpls IP Attorney better inform Mr. Janssen that he must bring a suit, and we must all concede that he should; because he can. And if anyone else out there can do anything tonight, you must do it.

I am giving up too. You all seem to want to twist what I said. What I said was:

Once you concede that MPR can bring the suit (i.e., they own a trademark which Gore et al are infringing on), then you must concede that they should bring the suit.

See that parenthetical statement that Rex took out? It is crucial to my argument, and if you ignore it you aren’t answering me. If someone is taking your iPod, do you just let them walk away with it? A right is only as good as you are able to enforce it. If you want to argue there should be no trademark rights whatsoever, then make that argument.

If, on the other hand, you wanna pop off on the interent about the merits of case without knowledge of the facts or law, I can’t stop you. (And even if I could, I wouldn’t )

SKP: I read it. Then I linked to it. Then I called it bullshit.

I second that and repeat again. And because I think it’s bullshit doesn’t mean that I’m required to “articulate the alternative.” (The only one being NOT filing a lawsuit and falsely claiming “brand confusion.” How in the hell can the even prove this?) Besides, didn’t someone trademark “articulate the alternative” already?

It seems as though you are in the “spout off” boat with us. Welcome aboard! I say this because you never established a creditable argument showing that Gore et al were truly infringing to the point that it causes confusion. I was not challenging the right to bring a suit, but only if there is credible grounds. I think that is the crux of this debate. Some of us feel that it would be difficult to confuse Cali Current TV and Minnesota Current Radio, which makes this lawsuit seem contemptible to some. To add fuel to the fire some MPR markets the whole community-radio, please donate, become a part of us idea, which seems quit different than Gores media outlet.

Ok, Attorney, then, if you think there is the chance of confusing TV with radio, is there also a chance of confusing a newspaper with radio? That’s the point. I don’t dispute that MPR can bring the suit, I dispute whether they should bring the suit since the likelihood of confusion is nil among reasonable people.

I should think the Current newspaper should have a great case, (although they seem to be run by reasonable people and won’t bring it,) since the topic of their newspaper seems to be public broadcasting.

What I think is being said here is that MPR may have a trademark, but Current TV is not infringing. Also, there is the possibility that the trademark should not have been granted, given that there are other media who use the name Current. The trademark office has probably made other mistakes before.

Logically, MPR must have argued to the trademark office that they could trademark Current for radio, because they were the first user in radio. It seems to defy logic then that they could claim it for all media, when there was obvious prior use in print media. Also, don’t you have to use a mark before you can apply for protection? I am unaware of MPR using Current on TV, which would be a necessary precursor of their claim to own it for TV, no? Or is the market definable as broadcast media, instead of all media?

As for the web, MPR does not own current.com (the newspaper does), nor do they own thecurrent.com, which seems to be held by a squatter, so how can they claim that current.tv can cause confusion when they don’t own a current domain?

Finally, don’t all the colloquial uses of current on radio, which must have hundreds of current affairs, current news, etc. features on hundreds of stations render current untrademarkable? If not, does MPR have to sue each one of them that might have a current affairs feature in order to protect its mark?

Just wondering.

Considering how “inconsequential” the story was, it certainly provoked a response. And I can guarantee you this isn’t the first straight-faced discussion of a Sun article on the Internet. I happen to know Josh Gerstein and he’s an amazing reporter. An update from Thursday’s Sun, which again beat the Strib:

GORE TV CHANNEL CLAIMS MINNESOTA NETWORK DEMANDED CASH
Vice President Gore’s cable network for young people, Current TV, is accusing Minnesota Public Radio of demanding cash to avert a trademark lawsuit. Current TV filed a formal response yesterday to the trademark
infringement case the broadcaster brought last year in federal court in St.
Paul. In the filing, lawyers for Mr. Gore’s network claim that the Minnesota
broadcaster’s alternative music service switched from using “89.3 The
Current” to simply “The Current” as part of an effort “to obtain a monetary
payment from defendants to avoid this lawsuit. The filing also called the Minnesota outlet’s trademark “weak and diluted” by the scores of other businesses that use the word “current” in their names. Asked about the alleged demand for money, a spokeswoman for Minnesota Public Radio, Jennifer Johnson, said, “We’ve been trying to resolve this issue.” She noted that her employer filed for the trademark in December 2004, five months before Mr. Gore’s venture disclosed its name and eight months before it went on the air.
 Staff Reporter of the Sun

Maybe the Sun will publish a follow-up article on how the (MPR) Current’s programming mix is, likewise, biased against Israel?

Demanding cash. Holy. Fucking. Bullshit.

I love The Current (and more particularly, its staff), but I suddenly wish that some cable tv outlet that they have never heard of had the luck to tradmark a name just a couple months earlier… and they would get their asses sued.

Oh wait, they must sue. They’re forced to do this. They’ve got no choice! That’s right….

You’re talking about the sentence in the 31st paragraph of the story, whereas the lead says the network is “cranking out an unusal and intriguing product.” I’m surprised the anti-Gore faction isn’t complaining about all of the positive comments that come before the criticism. C’mon. It’s just too easy to cherry pick. I’m sure the network does lean to the left, and it would seem pretty weird not to mention it. (And I’m a democrat.)

That’s some ‘matching fund drive’ they’ve got going on.

Rex: Maybe there is some insight into 89.3’s future business model. I am just speculating, but with the lines bluring on media delivery and platforms for those deliveries, maybe they had future plans to deliver video content via the web. In that case, I could see that they would feel like they have to protect their future “turf”.

If not, then it’s a pretty baseless lawsuit, and will end up ticking off their donation base.

Obviously, just speculation.

Sarah: The reason no one else is talking about the rest of the story is that it has nothing to do with Minnesota. That is also why it’s labelled “inconsequential,” in addition to esssentially being a rehash of 30 other stories just like it over the past year. And this post has nothing to do with politics.

Paul: So? I plan to take over the world, but it doesn’t mean I can sue you for a hypothetical.

I’m gonna trademark every word in the dictionary, and then sue anyone who uses them…. because theoretically I might want to some day use it for the purposes you might want.

(I should confess that I’ve worked with the Current.TV folks and consider several MPR people my friends… neither of these affect my opinion either way — I’d call it BULLSHIT if it were the other way around.)

Fair enough. I was just responding to Mike. And I agree, it is bullshit, even though I think The Current is an excellent radio station. Right up there with KCRW.

The best thing about this whole story is the name of MPR’s lawyer: Ernest Grumbles. How’s that for summing up not only a particular case, but an entire litigious era? Keillor–hell, Dickens–couldn’t do better.

The flaw in the Current’s case, as I said above, is you cannot trademark something you haven’t yet used in the particular context. So, since they haven’t used Current on TV, they can’t trademark it for TV. Their lawyers know this, unless they are prepared to argue that broadcast is broadcast, whether video or audio. Instead, it seems the whole thing was an extortion scheme.

BTW, as I was channel surfing last night during one of the Olympic broadcast’s commercials for the Iraq War, I came across CurrentTV. It’s on Time Warner channel 228 in Minneapolis. MPR should know that I never would have stopped there had they not publicized it for me.

unless they are prepared to argue that broadcast is broadcast, whether video or audio

This is kinda what I was getting at in my original post. More importantly, since they both stream content via their website, they can say their reach is anyone with an internet connection. Are there any cases that are similar to this one?

Yeah, and MNspeak has VOIP and IPTV and sex-DVDs-by-mail and webcam chat and everything else… so don’t you dare try stealing my ideas, because it’s all media.

Rex, when the ransom starts to flow in from all those infringers, can I be your girlfriend?

Where is the webcam chat, and how come I haven’t been invited to use it?

I’m not trying to agrue that it’s a valid case, but I am trying to see if there is something more to the case that could have broader implications.

I’m far from being a lawyer, that is for certain.

Rex, maybe you can try to copyright your name!

Tried that. Some rock band from the ’70s that sings a song called “Jeepster” already filed for infringement.

Ya know, it’s strange to even me which things set me off. But somehow this thread really irked me. Godamn lawyers!

Anyone notice the Strib story on this mentions us?

Rex: “Godamn lawyers!”

Especially the ones who participated in this thread, despite the anti-intellectual comments and name-calling from the laypersons. Lawyers suck.

“Bullshit” is post-intellectual.

Rex, I understand that the South Dakota legislature just passed a bill banning abortion. The phone number for the governor’s office is (605) 773-3212. Please call his office an explain that he should veto the bill, because it is teh bullshit.

Quit being a dick.

That could also work, but I recommend leading with the post-intellectualism.

I noticed the Strib did not give 89.3 The Current a link (CurrentTV and MnSpeak each got one.)
I wonder why.

t.rex rules.

So Al Gore will have to testify in the case of Current Communications Group of Maryland suing Current.TV for infringement. Just to prove my point, I hope Current Communications Group of Maryland sues MPR next…. because they can.