(no subject)
No one seems to be clear on how exactly the Hugo sponsorship deal was authorised, and no one is stepping forward to explain why they thought they had the authority to make a sponsorship deal for the Hugo Awards. The WSFS Mark Protection Committee is being silent about it. It appears that the Hugo service mark has been diluted.
The body that has control over the WSFS’s service marks is the MPC. (WSFS Constitution section 1.7.1)
All Worldcons are directly instructed to make a public announcement that the WSFS owns the service marks. (WSFS Constitution section 2.2)
I chose the term Dilution specifically, in the legal meaning of “trading upon the goodwill and established renown of such marks”. I think you’re being somewhat disingenuous to try and claim it was ‘merely advertising’ rather than a Sponsorship deal. That could only be true if it was an open market place where anyone could have bought air-time during the Worldcon.
Raytheon were clearly given special privileges to associate and trade upon the goodwill of the Hugo mark. There was a Raytheon sponsored red carpet, Raytheon appear to have been given access to the nominees for photo opportunities, and it is unclear what other considerations Raytheon received.
It’s the difference between buying air time during the Superbowl broadcast, which is Advertising, and having your logo chalked onto the playing field, which is Sponsorship. The latter being a direct “trading upon the goodwill and established renown”, and needs to be authorised or it’s mark dilution.
I see no text in the WSFS constitution that allows for a Worldcon to authorise a third party to associate themselves with the WSFS’s marks without approval of the MPC.
So if the MPC did not authorise this, it’s mark dilution. Entry cross-posted from Dreamwidth. Post a comment there or here, there are
currently posted on dreamwidth. (You can login with your LiveJournal OpenID account.)
The body that has control over the WSFS’s service marks is the MPC. (WSFS Constitution section 1.7.1)
All Worldcons are directly instructed to make a public announcement that the WSFS owns the service marks. (WSFS Constitution section 2.2)
I chose the term Dilution specifically, in the legal meaning of “trading upon the goodwill and established renown of such marks”. I think you’re being somewhat disingenuous to try and claim it was ‘merely advertising’ rather than a Sponsorship deal. That could only be true if it was an open market place where anyone could have bought air-time during the Worldcon.
Raytheon were clearly given special privileges to associate and trade upon the goodwill of the Hugo mark. There was a Raytheon sponsored red carpet, Raytheon appear to have been given access to the nominees for photo opportunities, and it is unclear what other considerations Raytheon received.
It’s the difference between buying air time during the Superbowl broadcast, which is Advertising, and having your logo chalked onto the playing field, which is Sponsorship. The latter being a direct “trading upon the goodwill and established renown”, and needs to be authorised or it’s mark dilution.
I see no text in the WSFS constitution that allows for a Worldcon to authorise a third party to associate themselves with the WSFS’s marks without approval of the MPC.
So if the MPC did not authorise this, it’s mark dilution. Entry cross-posted from Dreamwidth. Post a comment there or here, there are
currently posted on dreamwidth. (You can login with your LiveJournal OpenID account.)