The Gearhead Brand is Under Attack!

They sent out an email, but asked if I could post this for them. No, I am not affiliated, other than being a happy customer.

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=8efef6071c6b8fabac820d4ed&id=4f01fe837d&e=2acc036882

The Gearhead Brand is Under Attack! Facebook Page, obliterated. If you have recently been searching for our facebook page you should know that we were wrongly accused of copyright infringment by a company called Gearhead Records. In turn, Facebook... in their infinite wisdom.. removed our page from the site without any investigation. Facebook then told us that we had to contact Gearhead Records ourselves and get them to agree that we were not infringing on their rights... they have not responded to that request for response.

Why facebook would leave it up to the false claimant to verify that the page is legit is beyond me... it's asinine. Still this is the FB policy as is not having any way to contact them other than email which they seldom respond to.

So we've set up a (hopefully) temporary new facebook page to keep you informed of the goings on.

Gearhead Shirts Got Screwed Facebook Page

If you love us now, or you ever have, please give that page a like so we can use it as more evidence to prove that we are a legitimate business with legitimate customers who legitimately want us to have our page back! Also spread the word to anyone you know of who may have been a fan of the old page but might not be reached by the email.. sharing it on facebook would be a good way of doing that.

We're not out to spam people and get more followers.. we just want our page returned to us so we can continue connecting with you, our fans. You are our community and we like to think that you are the creators of our shirts. You tell us what you want and how you want it and that's what we make. Without you we wouldn't have gotten as far as we have and we hope that, with your support, we'll get it all back.

Thanks,

Ian

Copyright © 2013 Gearhead, All rights reserved.

yeah I got that email as well. Sucks. Anybody who makes a Subaru Brat t-shirt (and delivers the product) is good in my book. They did both.

It's bull E36 M3. Be sure to stop by Gearhead Records Facebook page and tell them what you think about it.

Post this on 4Chan

let them know how you feel at

http://www.facebook.com/Gearhead.Records?ref=ts&fref=ts

aussiesmg wrote: let them know how you feel at http://www.facebook.com/Gearhead.Records?ref=ts&fref=ts

I personally avoid face-tube, but I will make the bold leap into the '90's to support Gear head Shirts.

That's weird, someone edited their wikipedia page....

Wikipedia said: In 2013 they began a sweeping campaign of intimidation against any page on Facebook that had the word "Gearhead" in its title. Many of their fans, who commonly follow the punk ethos, declared this campaign to be in violation of the company's "punk" core values. Due to this policy of intimidation, Gearhead's respect on Facebook decreased dramatically.

In reply to Tom Suddard:

Ha! That's awesome.

I liked the new page. That really sucks!

Sure is a lot of love on the Gearhead Records page. No, wait, that's not the right word.

My post on their Facebook page: I don't see how Gearhead Shirts was infringing on any trademarks here. They don't market the same items, their logo looks nothing like yours, and they had no quarrel with you. Gearhead Shirts has about as much of a right to accuse you of copyright infringement - and after getting their Facebook page taken down, a definite right to accuse you of unfair business practices.

Words can not express our joy at the outpouring of support. Join us on the facebook page we created for Gearhead Shirts Got Screwed

or you can follow the saga on twitter @gearheadshirts.

Thanks guys!

Look out GRM! They might be coming after you next!

http://www.theconnextion.com/grassrootsrecordcompany/index.cfm?AC=0

And if anyone wants their bands to know how they feel about their label's conduct, here's a list of the bands they represent.

http://www.gearheadrecords.com/site/bands/index.php

Please keep it polite; they probably didn't condone their label getting into a censorship war.

Question is if their trademark claim is legit. They might be trying to build a case for a larger trademark claim by going through FB and "winning" there first.

In reply to moparman76_69:

I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly doubt they have a case. No more than Grassroots records has a claim against Grassroots Motorsports, or Urban records has a claim against Urban Outfitters. I think any reasonably prudent person who did any investigation would agree that "Gearhead" is a widely used word. He isn't using their logo, or using the word to sell records.

I doubt it's anything so nefarious. It's far more likely to be someone who doesn't understand copyright thinking "but I want to sell shirts, and I have a trademark Gearhead Records - ooo, and I can take this over with a simple email".

And now they're thinking "I have to pay for a LAWYER? Why?"

Keith Tanner wrote: I doubt it's anything so nefarious. It's far more likely to be someone who doesn't understand copyright thinking "but I want to sell shirts, and I have a trademark Gearhead Records - ooo, and I can take this over with a simple email". And now they're thinking "I have to pay for a LAWYER? Why?"

It may be the other way around...

Did a quick search on the uspto.gov website and... the word Gearhead has indeed been trademarked by Gearhead Productions, specifically in the category of clothing. Not sure what the different dates mean, but I suspect that "Filed for opposition, February 1, 2005" and "Registration Date, March 13, 2012" means that folks wanting to use the name should have been aware of it...

Gearhead Productions also got Gearhead Records, FWIW.

The fact that "gearhead" is a common word means bupkiss for trademarks: look at Dove soap (and Dove chocolate, owned by two different companies).

I'm afraid someone is going to have to change the name of their company... (but I'm not a lawyer... I did take an intellectual property law class once though).

my sympathies

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I think you're right that it probably isn't a case of someone really trying to be an ass, but I think the lawyer thing may be working in the other direction. As I understand it, the owner of the Gearhead Records mark already has a lawyer and now Ian is saying "I have to pay for a LAWYER to make this end?" Kinda sucks for him.

Like I say, I'm not a lawyer. If I had anything like this come across my desk, I'd shoot it off to our legal team. But this does sound like a little more than an honest mistake. Maybe jsut an honest, but very agressive mistake. Or maybe we're all wrong and this is a legitimate gripe. But I really doubt it.

Doesn't mean Ian won't end up getting screwed. Unfortunately, being right doesn't always equate to coming out on top of something like this. Depends on how much of an ass this person decides to be.

peter wrote: The fact that "gearhead" is a common word means bupkiss for trademarks: look at Dove soap (and Dove chocolate, owned by two different companies).

Was there legal action taken by one against the other? I'd have used that as an example of not being able to tradmark a common word, but you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Was there legal action taken by one against the other? I'd have used that as an example of not being able to tradmark a common word, but you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

You're thinking of patents - you can't patent something that's obvious or in common use (unless you're Trolling). It's perfectly legitimate to trademark a common word as it applies to a specific field. Apple Corps and Apple Computer had a famous, long-lasting spat over this. If there's any chance of confusion between the two brands, it becomes a lawyer feeding frenzy.

See here for the Dove explanation.

That said, one also has to defend a trademark. That's why Xerox and Kleenex fought huge, public PR campaigns to prevent their trademarks from becoming generic terms for photocopies and facial tissue, respectively. Gearhead the t-shirt company might be able to prove non-defense, rendering Gearhead Production's trademark void, but that's going to cost a lot of lawyer dollars.

Lawyers may not be popular and they may be expensive, but if you're looking to establish a brand, you'd better pay up for a good one.

Having recently gone through this, the order seems to be: identify the domain name you want, make sure it's available, have the lawyers check existing trademarks, and if that's cool, buy the domain, get the trademark application process going, and start your business.

In reply to peter:

Sorry, I'm still confused, but sounds like you know your stuff. The link you provided says:

"Though both products share the same "Dove" name, both are registered trademarks owned by different companies. This is possible because the two trademarks are associated with different goods."

Again, that sounds like exactly the argument I was making. The Apple example as well. I'm having a hard time seeing how a record company, even if they want to print T Shirts with their logo, can claim anything against a T Shirt company that doesn't even print that word. Looking again at Apple, it's hard to say, at this point, that Apple Computers isn't involved in the music industry. But the two brands are still associated with different goods.

With regard to trademarking common words, you're right - I didn't phrase it well. My point being, exactly as you've shown, that copyrighting a common word doesn't give you exclusive use of that word, as your examples point out.

IANAL, but IIRC one thing to keep in mind with trademarks is that if a company has a trademark for something and another company infringes said trademark knowingly or unknowingly, the company that owns the trademark has to defend said trademark or will lose claims to it. As a trademark owner you pretty much have no choice in the matter if you don't want to risk losing said trademark.

Huh, I had a thought - I wondered if IBM ever trademarked "PC". Looks like they didn't, but if you look at things they did get marks for, it makes my point. They own trademarks for "Power", "POWER", "Poet", "Purify" - and those are just a few from the "P" section! Common sense tells you that they can't sue just anyone and make them stop using the word "Power" in a trademark. There have to be thousands of trademarks with that word. Again, I'm pretty sure it has to do with the application.

http://www.ibm.com/legal/us/en/copytrade.shtml#section-P

Some good ones in there. "Solid", "Symphony". Hey, they even own the trademark for "Lotus".

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The Apple example as well. I'm having a hard time seeing how a record company, even if they want to print T Shirts with their logo, can claim anything against a T Shirt company that doesn't even print that word.

Ah, sorry. I wasn't clear.

Gearhead Productions, aka "the record company" actually registered the "Gearhead" trademark, in addition to the "Gearhead Records" trademark. This is a perfectly legitimate business tactic, done by smart lawyers/business folks to prevent nasty headaches like the Apple Corps/Apple Computer battle.

Gearhead T-shirts may not be printing the word Gearhead on their shirts, but they are using the word "Gearhead" for clothing-business purposes. Gearhead Productions owns the trademark of "Gearhead" in the clothing business. Why Gearhead Productions owns the trademark for "Gearhead" as it applies to clothing doesn't matter. They own it, and someone else is using it. Thus this conflict.

IANAL, but I do not think you need to be actively using a trademark that you have registered for, in the use that you have registered it under. You damn sure have to defend it, which is what they're doing now.