
Comedian changes name to Hugo Boss to challenge trademark law - aSig
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9MhjgphNWj/?igshid=1f85pcqneulx6
======
save_ferris
There have been some insanely aggressive trademark cases in the US too. The
University of Kentucky sued a small moonshine distiller for selling t-shirts
that had the word ‘Kentucky’ printed on them.[0] That’s it, having the name of
the state they resided in was enough to trigger Kentucky athletics.

The shirts weren’t trying to knock off or reference Kentucky Athletics in any
way, but that didn’t stop UK from putting legal resources behind their effort.
Yet another example of how the legal system is built for the rich.

0: [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/us/-legal-moonshiner-
and-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/us/-legal-moonshiner-and-
university-battle-over-rights-to-kentucky.html)

~~~
mcv
I really hope this got laughed out of court as hard as possible. It should
only be a trademark issue when they're likely to be confused. That's not
remotely likely here.

~~~
justaguyhere
UK will likely lose, but what will it change though? The little guy has to
spend time and money defending themselves and go through the stress that comes
along with it. UK probably will write the costs off and sue someone else.

~~~
Hamuko
This is why the American rule is really dumb.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_\(attorney%27s_fees\))

------
kjakm
1\. It's a trademark issue, not copyright.

2\. Don't companies have an obligation to defend their trademark or risk not
being able to defend them in the future?

~~~
ryanplant-au
His accusation is that Hugo Boss are going well beyond reasonable defense of
their trademark, by suing businesses in entirely unrelated industries that use
either 'Hugo' or 'Boss' in their names or their product names. One example he
cited was Boss Brewing, a Welsh brewery who said they spent about £30,000 /
38,200 USD on legal costs and rebranding after being targeted by Hugo Boss.
They're also alleged to have sent cease and desists about surfboards,
speakers, knives, and treadmills for having 'boss' in the name. It's hard to
argue that those weaken the Hugo Boss trademark.

He has a show about consumer rights ("Joe Lycett's Got Your Back", which I
suppose will be "Hugo Boss's Got Your Back" next season) so it's in his
wheelhouse.

~~~
tomhoward
> His accusation is that Hugo Boss are going well beyond reasonable defense of
> their trademark

The problem is that this question ultimately hinges on a court's judgment, and
they can't know in advance what evidence of "reasonable defense of their
trademark" will satisfy all the judges in all the cases where this issue is
examined.

So from the trademark-holder's point of view, the approach has to be to do
everything they can to be seen by the courts to be doing anything necessary to
defend their brand; particularly for such a big/valuable brand like Hugo Boss,
it's too risky to do anything less.

When you talk to people in these kinds of companies privately, they don't
personally care at all if some largely-unrelated small business somewhere has
a name that is vaguely reminiscent of theirs, and they'd rather not have to
waste time and money taking action against them.

These indignant reactions always happen when a big corporate is seen to be
bullying small, defenceless companies over trademarks, but on this topic it's
a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game".

~~~
vidarh
You have a much less aggressive option:

"Hey, we think your use of <x> is a bit too close for comfort. We recognize
it's not actually problem but it's in both our interest to avoid trademark
dilution issues; let's discuss some minor changes and nail down an agreement".

Then both sides can point to the agreement if someone else tries to use that
usage as a defense.

The real issue is not that they're communicating with people to ensure a clear
delineation of uses, but that they're doing so in a very aggressive and
hostile way and costing companies they do it to a lot of money.

~~~
tomhoward
I don’t know anything about the specific cases.

But how does any of us know there’s a way the could handle this in a less
hostile way and still be safe before the courts?

Are there examples of other companies doing it substantially better?

~~~
vidarh
There is no requirement to be hostile. They can always go for the hostile
option if the friendlier approach doesn't work.

All they need is to be able to demonstrate that they take action to protect
their mark. If they do so by agreeing license terms that covers reasonable
uses that is sufficient.

As for examples: Pretty much any company you don't see in the media harassing
companies with similar names. Hugo Boss are being exceptionally aggressive
here.

------
pysxul
I would like to bring everyone's attention on his top notch new signature

~~~
Maximus9000
Similar to Gavin Belsons

[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6KbRA2RjhgQ/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6KbRA2RjhgQ/maxresdefault.jpg)

------
nineteen999
On a tangent here, a bit over 20 years ago I used to work for a guy who
registered "boss.com.xx" (where xx is a country TLD I won't detail) because
that was the name of his publishing company here. This was still dialup/ISDN
days for most small companies over here.

He held on to it for a long time, but I noticed in the last couple of years
that it now redirects to www.hugoboss.com. Knowing this particular person I am
fairly sure that he would have sold it to them for a pretty penny.

~~~
cs02rm0
I'm not sure the list of countries that use com.xx is particularly long. And
the the list of those with that redirect is even shorter (one?!)

Perhaps there's opportunity to bag the few others and drop them an offer. =)

~~~
zenexer
If you do that, you’ll be facing a UDRP. You’ll be out a domain plus legal
fees.

~~~
cs02rm0
Chill out Hugo, it was a joke.

~~~
zenexer
Fair enough. ;) But if it wasn't obvious to me, it probably wasn't obvious to
other readers; a disclaimer can't hurt.

------
nkrisc
I wonder if he can then license his likeness and name for a nominal cost to
anyone who wants to use it.

------
bloak
This has nothing to do with copyright.

~~~
pysxul
He did it because Hugo boss is suing tons of small business with a name
including "BOSS" in order to hurt them financially.

~~~
OJFord
I think GP means that it's a (probably registered) _trademark_ , which is
distinct from 'copyright'.

~~~
thom
And, at the very least, it means that Hugo can't get a passport using his new
name:

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/548220/Annex_A_passports_August_2016.pdf)

~~~
Angostura
It should also be pointed out that the Deed Poll pictured isn't an official
document in any meaningful sense. In the UK, you pretty much change your name
by starting to use a new name and telling all the official bodies that you
have done so - and asking for new paperwork in that name (including passports
etc).

These Deed Poll forms are produced by any number of paralegal-esque companies
and are useful to include when writing to your bank/utility conpany, but
that's about it.

~~~
arethuza
There does appear to be a central process for doing it in Scotland:

[https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/registration/recording-
change-...](https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/registration/recording-change-of-
forename-and-surname-in-scotland)

Edit: Being married to Scots law lawyer I feel obliged to point these things
out any time I see a mention of a "UK" legal system... ;-)

~~~
Angostura
As an English person, I would like to both apologise and thank you for
pointing out the difference and challenging my default assumption.

------
tdy_err
Duplicate

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22466552](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22466552)

