Trademark
Yeezy v. Walmart is a case of Trademark that falls under multiple categories based on the article that we read. The biggest discrepancy between the two brands currently is the similarities between Yeezy's Foam Runner Shoes, and Walmart's knock off of the shoe.
The article states that, "Kanye West and Yeezy allege 'unjust enrichment based upon Walmart's willfully trading off the renown of Kanye West and his iconic YEEZY brand' and that consumers are purchasing the look-alike shoes from Walmart with 'the mistake belief that the shoes are associated with West and the YEEZY brand'.
They also state in the article that, "Yeezy and Kanye West argue that actual confusion among customers exists based on comments on social media referencing 'Walmart's Yeezy's' and the availability of 'Foam Runners at Walmart', and that customers are already associating the Walmart look-alines with Kanye West and Yeezy even though the companies have no relationship and Yeezy did not authorize Walmart to make or sell the iconic shoes.'
After reading the article, and looking into the case based on facts, I do believe that West and Yeezy could have a case against Walmart. While I do not understand the 'confusion' part of their claim, they could use better terminology and say just plain and simple that it is Dilution through Blurring and Tarnishment. It reaches these categories because as they said in the article and in their statements, "Consumers are purchasing the look-alike shoes from Walmart with 'the mistake belief that the shoes are associated with West and the Yeezy brand'. They could also file for Tarnishment because they do not have a contract with Walmart and the selling of their shoes is causing repetitional harm to the YEEZY brand because of the cheaper price they are selling it at.
I do not understand the term 'confusion' because it seems as though individuals are not confused when they go to buy the Walmart brand of this product. Individuals know that YEEZY is an expensive brand, and they are choosing to purchase the less expensive brand.
It also does not help the YEEZY brand because there has been a prior lawsuit between the two in relation to trademark with the brands logos. Looking at the photo below, we are able to see that the two logos are very similar.
When this lawsuit came out, Walmart stated, "The likelihood of confusion between Applicant's mark and [Walmart's] Mark is aggravated by the fact [Walmart] often partners with celebrities to create special lines of products and services and [Walmart] utilizes notable pop culture references to promote the goods are services of [Walmart}."
When looking at the logo's, this is where I could understand the confusion aspect of the case. Walmart does have these partnerships with celebrities, and it is no wonder because of the logos that individuals would be confused when looking at Walmart's shoes compared to the Yeezy shoes. Is that to say that individuals can make an educated guess when they purchase the shoes and know that they are not Yeezy's? Yes. But does this claim help Walmart when they are trying to win this case against YEEZY and West? Yes. So Walmart is going to reference this case and these logos when they are in this lawsuit against West. Like the article stated, "From a marketing standpoint, if Kanye West feel as though the quality of his products and his brand are being cheapened by any mistaken affiliation with Walmart, he should differentiate his brand as much as possible, including selecting a logo that is so far removes from Walmart's logo, that there is no chance of consumer confusion."
In the end, I do think that Yeezy could have a case against Walmart for Dilution, but at the same time, they knew from the logo case that their should have been a switch in their logo so that their was not consumer confusion. The next question in this case would be, "If Walmart were to stop selling these shoes, would individuals actually purchase Kanye West's Yeezy Foam Runner Shoes, or would they see the price and then not purchase the product because it is out of their price range?" If Yeezy can answer this question, and bring up these facts in the case, then they would be able to win against Walmart.
Copyright
When looking at the article on Copyright, it is a simple case of Google not following through with a contract held between the organization and French Publishers.
When looking at a Copyright Claim, the Plaintiff (French Publishers) would have to prove 4 Essential Elements:
1) Ownership
2) Unauthorized Use
3) Access to Work
4) "Substantial Similarity"
They are able to prove Ownership through the fact that they are the original authors of the articles being published. They cannot necessarily claim Unauthorized Use because they gave Google the rights to use their work through their copyright deal. Google has access to their work because they send it to Google to post on their search engine. Lastly, there is "substantial similarity" because it is their work that Google is posting on their search engine.
The only way they can sue Google through this case is under "Work For Hire". when looking at "Work For Hire" there are two points made:
1) A work created by an employee for his or her employer within the scope of employment.
2) A work created by a non-employee (such as a free-lancer) that is specifically a collective work (such as a newspaper or magazine) if a work-for-hire agreement is signed.
In the article that is hyperlinked to the original article Google states, "It would pay news publishers for the first time, a change of tack from the internet giant which for years has refused to do so. The company agreed to a raft of initial deals in Germany, Australia and Brazil, and now appears to be extending to France."
While I do not know the scope of the agreement signed between Google and the French Publishers, this sounds to me like it falls under the second point in "Work For Hire", and the French Publishers do have a case and are able to fine Google because they are using their products without paying them for their original Copyrighted work.
Comments