Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

What’s in a Flame? Industry Says it Burns Only for Them

By Susan Phillips - September 28, 2012 | 12:36 PM - 1 Comment

The Mar­cel­lus Shale Coali­tion .. http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/topic/marcellus-shale-coalition/ .. wants to keep their flame burn­ing. The indus­try group recently con­tacted the orga­niz­ers of Shale Gas Out­rage .. http://shalegasoutrage.org/ .. through their web­site host with a demand to take down the “Out­rage” flame for trade­mark vio­la­tion. The Mar­cel­lus Shale Coali­tion has trade­marked their blue and green flame as a logo for their annual Shale Gas Insight con­fer­ence .. http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/topic/shale-gas-insight/ . They say the out­raged frac­tivists have tread on their ter­ri­tory by tak­ing their Insight flame and turn­ing it into an out­raged orange and red.


screen shot from MSC website

The Mar­cel­lus Shale Coalition’s logo. The MSC
has accused the activists of trade­mark violation.


Shale Gas Out­rage screenshot

Shale Gas Out­rage orga­niz­ers have removed the orange and red
flame from their web­site. They say the demand vio­lates free speech.

James Singer, an attor­ney with Fox Rothchild, explained in an email to Blue­host, which hosts the web­site of the group Pro­tect­ing Our Waters .. http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/topic/protecting-our-waters/ , that the out­rage flame does not con­sti­tute fair use.

“The deriv­a­tive work appears on at least the fol­low­ing page: .. http://shalegasoutrage.org/ .. The use has not been autho­rized by MSC, and the pur­pose and char­ac­ter of the use on that page includes the solic­i­ta­tion of funds, which is not con­sid­ered to be a fair use.”


PGW screen shot

The oil and gas indus­try is full of trade­marked flames.
Above is the logo for the Philadel­phia Gas Works.

Singer did not return our call for com­ment. But other copy­right and trade­mark attor­neys did. It turns out that the oil and gas indus­try is full of trade­marked flames. Even Philadel­phia Gas Works has a flame in their logo. And just because a group is rais­ing money, doesn’t mean they’re not enti­tled to fair use.

“If you go into the trade­mark data­base,” said one attor­ney with 30 years of trade­mark and copy­right expe­ri­ence, “everybody’s got a flame. It’s what you use to iden­tify gas. So the ques­tion becomes, is it clear when you go to the site that it’s an attack.”

The Shale Gas Out­rage flame was taken down off the site. But just below the flame was, and still is, a yel­low ban­ner that reads “stop frack­ing now.” Pho­tos on the site include protest signs, and one has a back­drop that reads “Frack­ing poi­sons our air, our water, and us.”

This area of the law can be murky. But if the trade­mark is clearly used for par­ody or an attack, fair use is sanc­tioned. The ques­tion becomes whether or not the use of the trade­mark is con­fus­ing to a reader. In other words, if a per­son see­ing the flame on the shale gas out­rage site thinks the infor­ma­tion on the site may be endorsed by the Mar­cel­lus Shale Coali­tion, then the indus­try group may have a case.

A noted case that dis­cusses this issue is Peo­ple for the Eth­i­cal Treat­ment of Ani­mals v. Dough­ney. Michael Dough­ney cre­ated a par­ody web­site www.peta.org, which, by click­ing on the site, view­ers saw the title “Peo­ple for the Eat­ing of Tasty Ani­mals.” The ani­mal rights group PETA, sued for trade­mark vio­la­tion. The defen­dant said he was enti­tled to First Amend­ment pro­tec­tion of free speech. A fed­eral court ruled in favor of the ani­mal rights group and found Doughney’s web­site was not fair use.

“Defen­dant is guilty of “blur­ring” the famous PETA Mark because (1) Defen­dant used the iden­ti­cal PETA Mark to men­tally asso­ciate PETA.ORG to the PETA Mark; and (2) such use caused; (3) actual eco­nomic harm to the PETA Mark by less­en­ing its sell­ing power as an adver­tis­ing agent for PETA’s goods and ser­vices. Doughney’s site included mate­ri­als anti­thet­i­cal to the pur­pose and mes­sage of PETA in that “PETA.ORG” included links to com­mer­cial enter­prises engaged in con­duct directly con­trary to PETA’s ani­mal pro­tec­tion efforts.”

Shale Gas Out­rage did take down the flame on advice from an attor­ney. But orga­nizer Iris Marie Bloom says the effort is an infringe­ment on their First Amend­ment right to free speech. Bloom says the indus­try is act­ing as a “bully.”

Patrick Creighton, spokesman for the Mar­cel­lus Shale Coali­tion, responded to the “bully” charge in an email:

“We are a nation of laws. If some­one used NPR’s logo, they’d receive a sim­i­lar notice from your lawyers.”

Featured Topics


[ hidden descriptive: A drill rig rises
above a farm in Susquehanna County, Pa. ]
The Pennsylvania Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing, or “Fracking”
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/topic/fracking/


The Marcellus Shale, Explained
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/topic/marcellus-shale/


Who’s in The Marcellus Shale Coalition, and What Does It Do?
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/topic/marcellus-shale-coalition/


[ Iris Marie Bloom at a Delaware
River Basin Commission hearing.
Protecting Our Waters - http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/topic/protecting-our-waters/

More Topics [ ..multi more.. ]

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/09/28/whats-in-a-flame-industry-says-it-burns-only-for-them/

See also:

The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80048152