Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The trademark office has refused to trademark the Chippendale's "Cuffs and Collar" costume, because it is too common   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 31
    More: Interesting, Chippendales, U.S. Court of Appeals, Armenian Genocide, costumes, appeals court, Mao, earmarks, trademark attempt  
•       •       •

4789 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2010 at 12:02 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-10-02 07:46:47 PM  
Really? Paris Hilton gets a trademark on "That's Hot", but Chippendale's doesn't get a trademark on their signature look, the one they practically invented?
 
2010-10-02 10:01:54 PM  
But does it count as trade dress?

/rimshot
 
2010-10-03 12:03:44 AM  
img2.timeinc.net
 
2010-10-03 12:07:08 AM  
i51.tinypic.com
Seen breathing a sigh of relief.
 
2010-10-03 12:07:59 AM  
Would have been a great idea in 1985.
 
2010-10-03 12:09:18 AM  
It's what I wear to work.
 
2010-10-03 12:10:59 AM  
Creepy that Swayze and Farley are both dead. That's what you get for being half-naked and shaking your moneymaker.
 
2010-10-03 12:17:14 AM  
I'm wearing it right now.
 
2010-10-03 12:21:10 AM  
Solon Isonomia: But does it count as trade dress?

/rimshot


Heh. Good one. But seriously, though, it could aquire a secondary meaning and could be registered that way.
 
2010-10-03 12:21:42 AM  
FormlessOne: Really? Paris Hilton gets a trademark on "That's Hot", but Chippendale's doesn't get a trademark on their signature look, the one they practically invented?

That's Hot went abandoned:

Link (new window)

/examiner
//P side, not T side.
 
2010-10-03 12:25:21 AM  
FormlessOne: Really? Paris Hilton gets a trademark on "That's Hot", but Chippendale's doesn't get a trademark on their signature look, the one they practically invented?

They should have trademarked it back when they invented it. That they didn't bother to defend it as original art until now means they surrender any rights they might have had.
 
2010-10-03 12:29:57 AM  
erveek: Seen breathing a sigh of relief.

Seriously, would that count as prior art, invalidating a trademark claim? I know prior art usually invalidates patents, not so sure about trademarks.
 
2010-10-03 12:30:15 AM  
nickerj1: FormlessOne: Really? Paris Hilton gets a trademark on "That's Hot", but Chippendale's doesn't get a trademark on their signature look, the one they practically invented?

That's Hot went abandoned:

Link (new window)

/examiner
//P side, not T side.


Actually, that's odd, considering Hallmark just settled a lawsuit with Paris Hilton over that very trademark. I wonder if that was part of the settlement (the case is 3 years old), that she abandon the trademark?
 
2010-10-03 12:31:24 AM  
Armenian Genocide?

Someone just wants to see if we're paying attention.
 
2010-10-03 12:36:24 AM  
As TFA says, the costume was inspired by the Playboy Bunny costume. That makes it not distinctive.
 
2010-10-03 12:48:03 AM  
FormlessOne: nickerj1: FormlessOne: Really? Paris Hilton gets a trademark on "That's Hot", but Chippendale's doesn't get a trademark on their signature look, the one they practically invented?

That's Hot went abandoned:

Link (new window)

/examiner
//P side, not T side.

Actually, that's odd, considering Hallmark just settled a lawsuit with Paris Hilton over that very trademark. I wonder if that was part of the settlement (the case is 3 years old), that she abandon the trademark?


For large entities like Hallmark, it'd be chump change to license it. Or in this case, tell them to abandon.
 
2010-10-03 12:48:25 AM  
TFA: "The Playboy bunny suit was trademarked in 1964 and expired in 2004, the court said. That costume is shirt cuffs, corset, tie, bunny ears and bunny tail."

Does this mean that the Playboy bunny suit is no longer distinctive in 2004? Or did they didn't bother to renew it? And would it also mean that Chippendale's need a tail, or include a certain style of tearaway pants and they would've had a better chance?

/inquiring mind wanting to know, that's all.
 
2010-10-03 12:49:21 AM  
There's still a Chippendales?
 
2010-10-03 01:11:13 AM  
Only came in here to see a picture of Chris Farley. Thanks PC Load Letter.
 
2010-10-03 01:25:47 AM  
FormlessOne: nickerj1: FormlessOne: Really? Paris Hilton gets a trademark on "That's Hot", but Chippendale's doesn't get a trademark on their signature look, the one they practically invented?

That's Hot went abandoned:

Link (new window)

/examiner
//P side, not T side.

Actually, that's odd, considering Hallmark just settled a lawsuit with Paris Hilton over that very trademark. I wonder if that was part of the settlement (the case is 3 years old), that she abandon the trademark?


It looks like she abandoned it for some purposes but kept it for others. She has live trademarks on "That's hot" for alcohol (new window) and clothing (new window). Doubtless it was a combination of the phrase and a Hilton-esque character that convinced Ms. Hilton to sue and convinced Hallmark that this wasn't the one to go to the mat on.

FWIIW, other people own the phrase for use in instant noodles and for hair care products.
 
2010-10-03 02:23:43 AM  
Done in 2 and 3...
 
2010-10-03 03:50:12 AM  
frankly, ONCE is too common for the chippendales' look.
 
2010-10-03 04:10:35 AM  
Let's see how this works as Apple tries to trademark the word "pod".
 
2010-10-03 05:04:31 AM  
Came for the SNL reference, leaving satisfied..
 
2010-10-03 05:09:27 AM  
thumpandwhip.com

/That's hot...
 
2010-10-03 05:09:37 AM  
bubbaprog:
They should have trademarked it back when they invented it. That they didn't bother to defend it as original art until now means they surrender any rights they might have had.


Except they didn't invent it.

You'd know that if you'd read the article.
 
2010-10-03 05:13:19 AM  
"Too common"?

I wish.
 
2010-10-03 05:59:18 AM  
Maybe add some fishnets, a one piece, oh hell some bunny ears and a tail, and you got something to trademark.
 
2010-10-03 08:42:33 AM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7sFZQiEHJ4 Jack ass party boy NSFW
 
2010-10-03 12:08:06 PM  
Manfred J. Hattan: FormlessOne: nickerj1: FormlessOne: Really? Paris Hilton gets a trademark on "That's Hot", but Chippendale's doesn't get a trademark on their signature look, the one they practically invented?

That's Hot went abandoned:

Link (new window)

/examiner
//P side, not T side.

Actually, that's odd, considering Hallmark just settled a lawsuit with Paris Hilton over that very trademark. I wonder if that was part of the settlement (the case is 3 years old), that she abandon the trademark?

It looks like she abandoned it for some purposes but kept it for others. She has live trademarks on "That's hot" for alcohol (new window) and clothing (new window). Doubtless it was a combination of the phrase and a Hilton-esque character that convinced Ms. Hilton to sue and convinced Hallmark that this wasn't the one to go to the mat on.

FWIIW, other people own the phrase for use in instant noodles and for hair care products.


I didn't know that - interesting. Context is everything, these days.
 
2010-10-03 08:19:35 PM  
i.imgur.com

/ In case anyone needed to see the reference costume.
// Cuffs, check. Collar, check.
/// Thirty comments and this is the first bunny pic? Fark, what has become of you?
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report