Comments on: Update: SXSW lawsuit forces local restaurant to change name

By: Sense

Sense — Sun, 11 May 2008 03:23:42 +0000

There might be no formal legal connection (i.e., filings with the TX Secretary of State identifying structural relationships) between the Austin Chronicle and SXSW but there is absolutely no denying the promotional and financial synergy between the two businesses. One only has to look at the extensive promotion of SXSW in the Chronicle, which undoubtedly draws many eyeballs and much advertising to the publication. Furthermore, the Austin Chronicle is identified as a “platinum” sponsor of SXSW. How does that work?

Finally, as noted above, this is an issue of trademark not copyright. The point of trademark is to identify good or services used in the stream of commerce. Trademark law is pretty well defined, and a trademark that has been in use as long as SXSW is generally not in threat of being lost. In this case, the owner of mark has a set of choices that he or she may make in defending it based on the perceived damage to the mark. In other words, one picks one’s own fights. Teaming with a white-shoe law firm against a local restaurant is an interesting fight to pick. I think that, over time, SXSW will reap the negative rewards of such choices.

By: Scooby

Scooby — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:59:34 +0000

One way to prevent trademark infringement is to make the trademark undesirable- such as filing trademark defense suits so that no one wants to be associated with such a pack of uncool corporate tools.

I think that’s catch-23, a corollary to catch-22.

By: Lee Nichols

Lee Nichols — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:39:24 +0000

The Chron and SXSW are separate companies. Same owners, yes, but two separate corporations that as far as I know have no actual financial connection. I know to most people that might seem like splitting hairs, but in business terms, it’s an important distinction. “Corporate conglomerate” is better applied to, say, General Electric, which runs several businesses all under a single parent, with the financial liabilities of each shared by the company as a whole. By contrast, if SXSW gets into money trouble, the Chronicle bears no responsibility for it, and vice-versa.

By: awolken

awolken — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:21:51 +0000

Don’t forget about the beer blog. We beer snobs have to stick together!

By: Lee Nichols

Lee Nichols — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:18:38 +0000

Okay, I promise I won’t drag this out into a back-and-forth fight — mainly because SXSW can defend itself just fine without my help — but: I’m not sure what you think isn’t “purely local” about SXSW. They briefly ran a “North by Northwest” fest up in Portland, but gave up on that in 2001. As far as I know, they have no business interests outside of Austin, but I could be wrong.

And perhaps you’re bright enough to know the difference between a restaurant and a music fest, but I assure you other people aren’t. SXSW runs the risk that people will think they own SXS1st (which really becomes a problem if that business develops a bad reputation). They’ve been fighting this battle, constantly, since the fest was founded. I swear, half the businesses in this town would be called South by Something if they could get away with it.

Trust me, I know it seems stupid, but this is the state where people refer to any kind of soda as “Coke,” even if what they’re drinking is clearly Orange Crush or Dr. Pepper or Nehi Grape.

Okay, I’ll shut up now. I have to get back to work for the Black & Barbaro-owned company that actually pays me money.

By: awolken

awolken — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:09:25 +0000

Also… SXSW and The Austin Chronicle are owned by the same people. Weekly news publishing and music festivals are two seemingly different industries, correct?

Conglomerate: a corporation consisting of a number of subsidiary companies or divisions in a variety of unrelated industries, usually as a result of merger or acquisition.

Sorta fits, doesn’t it?

By: awolken

awolken — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:59:51 +0000

I’m not anti-SXSW by any means. But, I also don’t think it fits the mold of a purely local business.

I don’t disagree with their lawsuit. But I can also see the difference between a huge festival and a local restaurant, no matter what either of them is called. Little chance of confusing the two simply because they share a few words in the name.

By: Lee Nichols

Lee Nichols — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:55:35 +0000

First off, a disclaimer: I work for The Austin Chronicle, which is owned by the same people who own SXSW. Okay, with that out of the way:

“Corporate conglomerate”?!? Seriously? You might want to study up on SXSW (and look up the definition of “corporate conglomerate”). It is also a “purely local business,” and not a particularly big one at that. Because SXSW is successful and well-run run, people are often under the misconception that it is some huge megacorporation. Yes, they do partner up with some big companies for sponsorship, but go by their headquarters on 40th Street, about half a block west of I-35, and tell me if that place looks like a “corporate conglomerate” to you.

You should study up on copyright law as well. SXSW’s decision, just like South by South First’s, makes “business sense” – companies that don’t defend their copyright can lose it. I guarantee you that if another business opens up here in town with a name that strongly resembles “Austin Sound Check,” you’re not going to be happy.