With more details now out in the open, it seems that NBCU might have had a serious bluff going on with the hand they were dealt while they were out looking for a new name for The Sci Fi Channel. In the end, a small, fan-run website seems to have received the short end of the stick.
Read on, you’ll see why I say that.
| |
Back on March 16th, I reported that The Sci Fi Channel was changing its name to Syfy. I came out of the gate slinging from the hip questioning this name change. The name change gave them the umbrella brand they were looking for and could expand on, not to mention copyright.
The other facts that were being revealed that day were that they were using a consultant company called Landor Associates and that they had 300 possible names to choose from.
Amongst all the fanfare and angst that was starting to rise up from the seething lines of the Internet, I had noticed that a website I had been reading, called SyFy Portal, had changed its name to Airlock Alpha during this same time frame.
Further digging revealed that SyFy Portal had indeed sold their SyFy brand name to an undisclosed entity.
I also questioned whether they made a buck or two off the this brand name sale?
In short, yes. They made $250,000 to sell their “brand” name to what eventually turned out to be NBC Universal. Sound like a lot of money? Read on.
Michael Hinman, the creator of SyFy Portal, has written an open letter to Michael Engleman, President of NBC Universal, the parent company of the Syfy Channel, and it’s not a glowing congratulatory letter either.
Micheal calls out a quote by Engleman for saying that “with a ballpoint pen and a piece of scrap paper, Syfy was born.“ Huh?
He calls him out because, in fact Michael Himman coined the name 10 years ago for his own website.
He made mention that NBC didn’t approach them directly, but used a shell company called New Fizz Corp to buy the domain name. New Fizz also ponied up for all branding references related to the domain name, such as SyFy, Sy and even Sy.
He’s also miffed that they got away with him selling his long-owned name for only $250K when the real buyer behind the process made $16.9 BILLION in revenue. I’m thinking that he may not have sold for only $250k if NBCU wasn’t hiding behind a shell company. At least I would have tried for more income.
But the idea that NBC hid behind a false front to make this transaction with Himman seems sneaky to me.
Despite being short changed, Michael did say this in his open letter:
“And we are big fans of what SciFi Channel and now Syfy does. We like Warehouse 13. We like Caprica. We can’t wait for Stargate: Universe.”
“And to be honest, we even like you for taking the chance with such a different name, and weathering the short-lived, if not heavy, typhoon of criticism that hit you.”
“But what we don’t like is when you try to drown out the fans. When you try to stomp us out. When you take from us for next to nothing, and then do what you can to make sure we can’t even get our voices heard above the media machine you have created. How are fans supposed to take that?”
He finishes off by saying:
“But to those of us who are struggling to do the things we do … it’s yet another example of how mega-corporations do whatever it takes to make money, even at the expense of the little guy.”
If I were in his shoes, I’d feel ripped off too. Shame on you NBC/U, shame on you.
Source: Michael Hinman’s open letter (I recommend you head over there for a lot more detail on this.)
Loading ...
51 Comments
As the Bard said, brevity is the soul of wit, so I shall try to be brief*:
Except he wasn’t.
Michael, the weight of your argument doesn’t rest on the (excessive) length of your diatribes.
Nor do I depend them to be. The weight of my arguments rest on the actual facts I can provide. Which I have.
Neither does it impress your potential readers when you insult, attack and condescend to others (particularly those who have written positively on your accomplishments) touting your supposed knowledge of the law, when it is clearly lacking.
Well, prove it. I’m not here to “impress” my “potential readers.” I am here to discuss trademark law, which people here seem to be so greatly interested in.
What’s insulting are these continuing claims about my “lacking” knowledge of the law, but yet, I have provided a ton of literature not created by me to back it up, and I have yet to see anything contrary.
I am still reading through your post, so let’s see if you continue the trend.
Yes, you come off as arrogant; but worse than that, you come off as defensive and self-justifying.
I also come off as someone who seems to be able to prove his points. So all the character observations in the world isn’t going to top that.
Of course you want to claim to have held an unregistered trademark on “Syfy” — even though you did not.
OK, let’s see you prove it. I’m waiting.
Your previous site was called “SyFy Portal” while your earlier (1998) Geocities site was “SyFy World” until the merger with Star Trek Portal in May 2001. The “informal” and later company name you used was “SyUniverse Group,” while a podcast you produced was called “SyPod.”
I never produced a podcast called “SyPod.” That was a general name to all of our multimedia activities.
Yet, at no time in the last decade, did you use “Syfy” as a distinct, unique identifier, nor indicated your intention to claim it as a mark with a “TM.”
I don’t have to use the “TM.” There is absolutely nothing in the Lanham Act that says I have to use such a marker. If it’s there, show it to me.
Just like if I publish a story, I do not have to put a copyright notice on every story, or even on the site at all. It is implied that the copyright exists. So it’s not my argument that is weak.
Also, we DID make an effort to make sure that “SyFy” was a distinct, unique identifier.
You can take a look at this archived page here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080214072403/www.syfyportal.com/copyright.php
Here is the paragraph you should take a peek at:
“SyFy Portal” (2001), “SyFy World” (1998), “The SyUniverse Group” (2002), “SyPod” (2005), “SyBlog” (2006), “The SyFy Genre Awards” (1999), “Syfyman” (1998), “SyClopedia” (2006) and “SyFy” (1998) are under U.S. and international implied trademark protections, and are owned by The SyUniverse Group.
That is our copyright page, and if you look back further, you will notice that we maintained “SyFy” as a separate entity for a long time. Even in this simple paragraph, which by the way was published a YEAR before NBCU contacted me (at least on the example I am showing you), we made efforts to identify “SyFy” as a separate identifier.
I could not start a new drink called Coca-Cola Portal. Because based on your reasoning, I could … because I am not separating one trademark as part of an overall trademark, you feel that I can’t have either.
Well, in that case, Coca-Cola has lost “Coca-Cola.” For years, more than 20 actually, they distributed their products under a variety of names: “Coca-Cola Classic,” “Diet Coke,” “Cherry Coke,” “Vanilla Coke,” but not just plain ol’ “Coca-Cola.” even the name of the company was not “Coca-Cola,” but instead, “The Coca-Cola Company.”
So if your argument is that because the trademark was used as an adjective or part of a compound word, and we never just called anything “SyFy” and that was it … then Coca-Cola is in big trouble.
The Lanham Act has no bearing on your claims. 15 USC 1125(a) — which originates from Section 43(a)) — is clear that *famous* marks are only protected against intentionally deceptive or potentially confusing usage, or misrepresentation of origin, which is not the case here.
Really? Please quote it, and show me where the only trademarks that can be registered has to be “famous.” You are quoting the section on trademark dilution, which is something completely different, and not even part of this argument.
You are quoting from Section 43, which FYI, is titled “False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden.” This section, just so you know, deals with someone who has created a trademark, and who might be dealing with an outside entity that has what could be a confusing mark, but not one that necessarily is considered infringement.
For example, let’s say my last name is Appel, and I build computers, so I start creating computers under the trademark Appel Computers. Because the name is specifically tied into me (as I have the right to use my last night), and it’s otherwise a trademark that can exist, under the law, I am technically NOT infringing on any other trademark.
However, I start to grow, and Apple Computers sees some issues of confusion where people were told they were buying an Apple, but in reality, were buying an Appel.
Under Section 43, Apple Computers (well, now they’re called Apple Inc. actually) could seek to enjoin me from using Appel Computers, not because I am infringing on their copyright, but because I am using a mark that is creating confusion and possible dilution of their brand and trademark.
In order for Apple to be successful, THEY have to prove that the brand they are using is “famous,” and the reason why they have that threshold is because technically, Appel Computers is NOT infringing.
I tried to keep that brief, so I hope that worked. By the way, you can read the updated Lanham Act, at least through 2005, here: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/
Sorry. Unless your impression is that “SyFy Portal” was so well-known, that the general public would be deceived and confused if NBCU’s started using “Syfy” as a brand, your arguments about having an unregistered trademark don’t hold water.
But you’re quoting trademark dilution, which is not the same thing. “Dilution” is a claim outside of infringement. It’s a way to go if infringement options don’t exist, as would be the case between Apple Computers and Appel Computers.
However, if I started a company called Apple Computers, even if my name was Mike Apple, it would be infringement. Your mark does not have to be “famous” to have that option because infringement is much more straightforward.
Wow … for me being so “weak” when it comes to trademark law, I seem to know exactly what I am talking about, and seem to be able to comprehend these laws a bit better.
Oh, was that arrogant? I’m not the one taking one piece of a law out of context and completely misrepresenting it. THAT is arrogance.
But the point is moot, now. The deal with NBCU is done. You’ve gotten paid, handsomely. You should be kicking back and focusing on developing your new identity, instead of straining your own and everyone else’s patience, spitefully defending your place as a footnote in genre media history.
I think I can do whatever I want. Just as you can. And I never asked Screen Rant to cover this. So if you have an issue with such a thing being discussed here, you should probably take it up with them.
But I’m sure Vic and Bruce know what they are doing, and can tell you that you are just one of many readers, and they are trying their best to serve all their readers, not just Simon.
Continuing to hash this out just makes you look bad.
(*With apologies to Shakespeare; I have failed him.)
Really? You’re the last one standing. I think it makes me look right.
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!