Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

United farm Workers OWN the phrase 'Si se Puede'...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:39 PM
Original message
United farm Workers OWN the phrase 'Si se Puede'...
AeroMexico's trademark application

After AeroMexico, a Mexican airline, had filed a trademark application for "Sí se puede" with the US Trademark Office, lawyers for the United Farm Workers defended the phrase as the intellectual property of the UFW. After litigation, AeroMexico agreed not to use the phrase and abandoned its trademark application.<1>


1.Arturo S. Rodriguez (1998-03-31). Statement from Arturo S. Rodriguez, President, United Farm Workers of America, Celebrating Cesar Chavez's Birthday 3/31/98-La Paz, Keene, Cal


--------------------------------------------------------------
and further


1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jan-12-08 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. Actually, according to TESS,

it is a live trademark;


SI SE PUEDE
Translations The English translation of "SI SE PUEDE" is "yes it can be done" or "yes you can".
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: business consultation services, namely, assisting communities, organizations and individuals with the set up, management and maintenance of political and labor unions and campaigns, including how to successfully raise funds, to reach a broad base of supporters, and to form non-profit organizations; employment counseling. FIRST USE: 19720512. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19720512
IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: comprehensive union health benefits plan, namely, administration and organization of pre-paid health care plans; credit unions; administration of pension plans for retired farm workers; financial information. FIRST USE: 19720512. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19720512

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: educational services, namely, providing lectures, classes, seminars, conferences and computer training in the fields of health and safety issues, legal and civil rights, history of labor movement, political issues, and English and Spanish languages. FIRST USE: 19720512. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19720512

IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: farm labor unions; promoting public awareness for the needs of collective bargaining and voter registration; legal services to farm workers; counseling regarding union and personal matters. FIRST USE: 19720512. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19720512

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75397388
Filing Date November 28, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition September 29, 1998
Registration Number 2212951
Registration Date December 22, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO LABOR UNION CALIFORNIA P.O. Box 62, La Paz Keene CALIFORNIA 93531
Attorney of Record BROOKE OLIVER
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE


and now there is a thread titled "Obama supporters at Las Vegas rally chant "Sí se puede!"

Yes, all you little privates and corporals in the Kiddy Army, the phase is copyrighted. No it does not matter that others have used it in the past. If Obama the great legal mind actually respected the laws of this country and the tenets of his profession he would do the courteous thing and ask permission of the UFW for it's use. But maybe you do reflect him more closely than some of us had HOPED for.

At this time it would seem prudent for the Legal scholar to obtain permission to use a 'borrowed' phrase.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Anouka Donating Member (712 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nevada has a large latino population -- they're not allowed to speak Spanish?
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:44 PM by Anouka
I personally don't believe Obama should have co-opted 'Yes We Can'... and it was a co-opting of the english phrase, from what I understood, not the spanish.

Are both the english and spanish versions copyrighted?

Also, your quotes state:

SI SE PUEDE
Translations The English translation of "SI SE PUEDE" is "yes it can be done" or "yes you can".


Is the copyright only for translations that include 'it can be done' and 'you can'?

Is 'yes, we' can kosher because it's not included in your quoted section?

That also reminds me, off topic, whatever happened to the copyright issue of 'Burn Baby Burn'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. just do a little research, it won't take long and your uestions and doubts will be cleared up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anouka Donating Member (712 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. In other words, you don't know yourself and are just parroting
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:59 PM by Anouka
someone else's wisdom and work, as if it were your own -- with no attribution.

Now that's theft. But ok, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. SI SE PUEDE is on the Obama signs - hard to claim no theft of copyright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Got pictures of those signs?
I haven't seen any official "Sí Se Puede" materials, only unofficial. Not that it would matter even if they are official, as again it's trademarked, not copyrighted, and it's neither being used for commercial purposes nor "with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Even if it is, if they're not SELLING them, it's not a copyright violation. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. That's not quite accurate
You don't have to make a dime to violate copyright. But this isn't a matter of copyright, it's a matter of trademark, those are very different things.

Patents protect processes, designs, and inventions; they must be filed and granted by the USPTO; they last 17-19 years; they grant exclusive rights to the patent owner over that process, design, or invention, but require that it be released into the public domain at the end of the patent's duration.

Copyright protects creative work, or more specifically, a particular creative instantiation of an idea on media; it is granted automatically when the work is created and doesn't need to be registered; it lasts until the originator's death plus 70 years, or 120 years after creation if it was a work for hire; it grants exclusive rights over the reproduction and distribution of that work with some limited restriction of Fair Use.

Trademarks/service marks protect a brand name, logo, image, or the like, which is particularly identified with a particular commercial business, product, or service; it must be applied for and granted by the USPTO; there is no definite expiration date but it lasts as long as the trademark/service mark holder keeps it updated (there's a lot of law around that, but if a company isn't actively using a trademark or doesn't protect it well enough, it can be declared abandoned and released to public domain); and it provides the least amount of rights, essentially only letting the owner of the mark sue if someone else is attempting to do business under their mark or if someone else's use of their trademark is hurting their business by fraud or deception of customers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I stand corrected - it is indeed a trademark violation rather than a copyright problem for Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Getting closer!
The whole issue is in the arena of trademark, not copyright, but it still isn't a trademark infringement. It's not being done for commercial gain and it's not being done for the purposes of fraud or deception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Didn't you already make a topic or two on this very same thing?
so why not revive one of those rather then keep making new ones on the same topic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. seems the Kiddies missed them and...
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:48 PM by Didereaux
this one I have taken some info furnished from the others. And it gets rid of the 'chaff' side threads and wasted sniping.

thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anouka Donating Member (712 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The OP does it for the sake of Hillary.
That's all. Hillary needs the OP. Ask the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. ooops! private in the Kiddy Army I see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anouka Donating Member (712 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Keep supporting Hate and Fear (the Clintons) over Hope and Courage
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:57 PM by Anouka
(Obama, Edwards, or a combination of the two as you see fit).


I'm not an Edwards supporter, and have not been in this particularly horse race; but I'd vote for him over the Clintons.

Edwards says the Clinton Campaign has no conscience....... but it's Obama who gets hate rained down upon him for saying he's disappointed with how folks are running Hillary's campaign.

I guess being pitied makes folks more angry than being called out as unconscionable. Obama pities, Edwards is fire. Pity trumps fire. All the Clintons know is fire; they are insulted by pity..... like a certain self-righteous man of God in 'Pillars of the Earth'. I wonder when they'll come to their senses about their pride pretending to be political piety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Two, in fact...
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. see msg#3
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. my, my. you really are in a tizzy over this.
How many threads on it have you posted? Quite the bee you have buzzing under your bonnet.

Have you actually ascertained that he's obligated to get permission for this. Do you know if he has asked for and received permission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. Brush up on your IP law
The phrase is trademarked, not copyrighted. You can chant a trademarked phrase all you want so long as a reasonable person would not think that you are representing the organization who owns the trademark and so long as you're not selling anything, making a profit, or hurting the profit of the trademark's owner. Check Title 15 of the US Code.

And besides, Obama never used the phrase "Sí Se Puede," he used the phrase "Yes We Can," which long outdates the trademark you've pointed out and doesn't belong to anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. read closer my friend, they now have SIGNS with it on. commercially printed signs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Read the US Code section I referenced closer
I'll cite to make it simple.

Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—

  • a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

  • b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.


Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.


It has to either be commercial use (printing out signs to hand out for a campaign is not), or it has to be advertisements for use in commerce (this is arguably advertisement, but it's not for commerce), and it has to be knowingly designed to "cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"--in other words, you have to be using the trademark in such a way that people think you actually are the trademark owner, in order to capitalize on their trust and brand loyalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. and I would point you to WestLaw and research the case histories
but I am no lawyer and do not claim to be...so any deeper discussion of the issue probably should be left to them. Hey, Obama, Hey Clintons! grin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. Your posts are reeking of
stale whine and you jealousy call Obama supporters, "kids"..what are you some ancient relic from the last century?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. Wouldn't it be a HUGE benefit, especially in CA to get the UFW permission to use...
their trademarked slogan? That would be tatamount to endorsement by the most influential Chicano/Latino organization in the largest delegate state. Yet, the childlike minds of certain supporters would rather risk the chance that the UFW might just take their butts to court and that would be a DISASTER as far as getting the California latino voters support. Despite all the name calling and flaming I take about being for this or that candidate I am NOT, I was a Biden supporter and when he was in the race I made no bones about that support. Now I have ONE and ONLY one goal, to help in any way to get the strongest,candidate with the best tuned organization possible into the generals and to WIN IN NOVEMBER! That is the ONLY goal there is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bishop Rook Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. No worries
The UFW won't sue, and even if they did, they'd get immediately thrown out of court.

I have no doubt Obama will be courting the UFW endorsement, and I'd venture they're likely to give it to him, or possibly to Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. the unions seem to be splitting so I'll just watch rather than bet...heheh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
24. and he stole "Fired Up" from latin singer Alesha!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC