Trademarking Prayer

[ClydeR]

Tim Tebow has trademarked his prayer pose. Should you be able to trademark a prayer pose? I say no.


CHICAGO, October 20, 2012 — If Tim Tebow doesn’t approve of the way you pray, you may have to pay him. Tebow popularized the act of dropping to one knee to honor and give thanks to God by praying publically during football games. The act, strikingly similar to one performed by Catholics at pew entrances for the past several centuries, became known as “Tebowing.”

As of October 9, 2012, Tim Tebow now owns the trademark for “Tebowing.” Tebow has stated that he did not acquire the trademark for financial gain, and being the good Christian that he is, that is probably true. Tebow’s goal is “to just control how it’s used, make sure it’s used in the right way.”

Apparently the trademark is not solely on the term to Tebow, but on the pose as well. You don’t have to call it “Tebowing” to be subject to Tim’s approval. Drop to one knee with your fist to your forehead, and if Tebow does not approve of the context, you will pay.

More... (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/end-day/2012/oct/21/tim-tebow-now-owns-tebowing-trademark-setting-new-/)

[WRoss]

This could probably be torn apart in court, but practically speaking, it sounds like he just trying to make sure that someone doesn't use it in a negative light. Plus, he's the great Tim Tebow. He can do nothing wrong.

[msconstrew]

This could probably be torn apart in court, but practically speaking, it sounds like he just trying to make sure that someone doesn't use it in a negative light. Plus, he's the great Tim Tebow. He can do nothing wrong.

LOL. I'd love to see him try to enforce this trademark. "Oh my GOD, Tony Romo just knelt and looked at the sky! TRADE DRESS REMEDIES!"

[WRoss]

LOL. I'd love to see him try to enforce this trademark. "Oh my GOD, Tony Romo just knelt and looked at the sky! TRADE DRESS REMEDIES!"

I think it's more in the lines with something similar to the "Discount Doublecheck" which has been trademarked. I know next to nothing about trademark law, so I'll defer to you here, but couldn't he possibly prevent Tebowing from being used in commercials without his consent? Also, would the religious aspect of it muck up the case?

[Drew]

. I know next to nothing about trademark law, so I'll defer to you here, but couldn't he possibly prevent Tebowing from being used in commercials without his consent?

Ding Ding.

[Parkbandit]

I think it's more in the lines with something similar to the "Discount Doublecheck" which has been trademarked. I know next to nothing about trademark law, so I'll defer to you here, but couldn't he possibly prevent Tebowing from being used in commercials without his consent? Also, would the religious aspect of it muck up the case?

Yes. It has nothing to do with if Tony Romo does it. It has to do with Tony Romo profiting from doing it.

[WRoss]

It just seems odd that it's an act of prayer which he is trademarking. That's the area I'm not to clear about. Wouldn't his trademarking of this act prohibit the free exercise of religion? If he trademarked it as a secular act of celebrating a sports achievement, then sure. As it stands now, it just screams that something is wrong.

[msconstrew]

Yes. It has nothing to do with if Tony Romo does it. It has to do with Tony Romo profiting from doing it.

Correct. Romo doing it on the field likely wouldn't result in damages. Someone else infringing or diluting on Tebow's trademark on TV would arguably do the trick. Damages range from lost profits (if provable), plaintiff's costs (including attorney's fees by statute), and treble damages if you can prove bad faith. I think it would be very difficult to prove trademark infringement or dilution here, though, because Tebow would need to prove trademark confusion (in other words, someone mistook the trademark infringer for Tebow himself) and that he lost profits as a result of the confusion. Hard to prove, in general; probably even more difficult to prove in cases where the trademark owner is so obviously recognizable.

Though! And I just thought of this - one could parody Tebow's prayer pose on TV, for profit, and still not be found to have infringed on the trademark if the parody is clear. Parody is one of the main defenses to trademark infringement/dilution. (I had to go back and look at my IP notes to remember the defense).

[msconstrew]

It just seems odd that it's an act of prayer which he is trademarking. That's the area I'm not to clear about. Wouldn't his trademarking of this act prohibit the free exercise of religion? If he trademarked it as a secular act of celebrating a sports achievement, then sure. As it stands now, it just screams that something is wrong.

Well, first, he's a private actor. Private actors can do whatever the hell they want as long as they're not acting under the government's approval or with apparent government authority. Second, I don't see how trademarking a prayer pose would prohibit free exercise of religion. He's gonna get down on his knee and thank his savior, the Lord Jesus Christ AMEN, for his ability to throw shitty passes. It doesn't inhibit the people watching the game/commercial/whatever from exercising their religion; it probably just makes them hate his sanctimonious bullshit a little more.

[WRoss]

Well, first, he's a private actor. Private actors can do whatever the hell they want as long as they're not acting under the government's approval or with apparent government authority. Second, I don't see how trademarking a prayer pose would prohibit free exercise of religion. He's gonna get down on his knee and thank his savior, the Lord Jesus Christ AMEN, for his ability to throw shitty passes. It doesn't inhibit the people watching the game/commercial/whatever from exercising their religion; it probably just makes them hate his sanctimonious bullshit a little more.

But wouldn't it become a first amendment issue if Tebow, say, tried to sue a Evangelical that went on TV on Sunday and Tebowed? That's the issue I'm seeing is that it would force the government to enforce a prohibition of religious acts. So while it's great that Tebow has become so recognized for kneeling and praying, how could he actually get the government to enforce remedy for an act that someone so could easily claim was a religious act?

[msconstrew]

But wouldn't it become a first amendment issue if Tebow, say, tried to sue a Evangelical that went on TV on Sunday and Tebowed? That's the issue I'm seeing is that it would force the government to enforce a prohibition of religious acts. So while it's great that Tebow has become so recognized for kneeling and praying, how could he actually get the government to enforce remedy for an act that someone so could easily claim was a religious act?

Okay. So you're saying one of the TV preachers gets up there and Tebows without Tebow's consent. Tebow sues Preacher for trademark infringement and asks the federal court system to find that Preacher's actions are, in fact, actionable and that they caused him damage. But you're saying that because the trademarked act in question is religious in nature, wouldn't the government's enforcement of the trademark therefore become prohibited governmental speech in favor of religion?

I don't think so. The government's not implicitly approving of the act of Tebowing (I hate this term; he is KNEELING) when it allows Tebow to pursue remedies available to him the USC. Tebow pursues the remedies, Preacher defends against the charges, and the judge merely determines the legal issues. I can't see how that would violate the First Amendment. I mean, I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it rises to the level of government approval of or encouragement of or inhibition of religion. It's enforcing a legally valid trademark that just happens to be religious in nature.

[Androidpk]

It isn't about the pose itself, it's about the money.

http://tebowing.spreadshirt.com/

[~Rocktar~]

It's always about the money.

[Tgo01]

As of October 9, 2012, Tim Tebow now owns the trademark for “Tebowing.” Tebow has stated that he did not acquire the trademark for financial gain, and being the good Christian that he is, that is probably true.

I laughed.

[Keller]

LOL. I'd love to see him try to enforce this trademark. "Oh my GOD, Tony Romo just knelt and looked at the sky! TRADE DRESS REMEDIES!"

Romo was a bad choice. Should have picked someone with deep pockets. Everyone knows Jessica Simpson spent all his money on extra biscuits at Red Lobster.

http://scrapetv.com/News/newsbrief/entertainment/images-6/jessica-simpson-fat.jpg

"Did someone mention cheddar bay biscuits? I'll take this many!"