Je suis Charlie: jumping on the bandwagon
The emergence of social media has allowed millions of people to simultaneously communicate on one subject. Rarely is this better exemplified than in the aftermath of an event that captures the attention of a nation, or even the world.
In recent memory, the bombings at the Boston Marathon in 2013, the death of cigarette salesman Eric Garner in July 2014 and the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association ‘Ice Bucket Challenge’ all caused a flurry of trademark applications to spring up in the wake of those events. While the show of solidarity is commendable, it has become increasingly common to see individuals and companies try to claim rights to the resulting slogans and phrases.
This January, the issue was brought to our attention again when France’s IP office, the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), threw out 50 trademark applications for ‘Je suis Charlie’. The phrase, which translates as ‘I am Charlie’, was widely used after eight employees of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were shot dead by Islamic extremists.
Applications were also made at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP), which covers the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Isabelle Leroux, partner at law firm Dentons in Paris, tells WIPR that the INPI decided that the slogan could not be registered in France due to a lack of distinctiveness.
Leroux says that although arguments can be raised in favour of trademarking the term, there are more arguments against it.
“Regardless of the goods and or services concerned, it does not comply with the primary function of a trademark: it was not created or used by an individual or business organisation in the course of trade,” she says.
“In the mind of the consumer, ‘Je suis Charlie’ will always refer to the Charlie Hebdo tragedy and the protection of free speech. It could also be considered as trademark infringement of the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ trademark, clearly referring to this mark and creating confusion,” she adds.
“THE APPLICANTS ARE TRYING TO CAPITALISE ON AN ATTENTION-GRABBING MOMENT IN HISTORY. MANY OF THESE KINDS OF APPLICATIONS ARE NOT PART OF A REAL BUSINESS PLAN."
But what was the motivation behind the applications? Was it purely financial—in anticipation of future licensing fees—or were the reasons more altruistic?
Yanick Uytterhaegen, the Belgian who attempted to trademark the term at the BOIP, insisted that he was not seeking to profit commercially and that he wanted to do something to help the victims of a “horrible” terrorist attack.
He told the UK-based Independent newspaper: “I want to license the trademark ‘Je suis Charlie’ to help the magazine to get some money and continue to produce its work. I want money from the products to go to the Charlie Hebdo foundation and to the victims’ families.”
The applicant for the US ‘Je suis Charlie’ application, Steven Stanwyck, told WIPR he wanted to use the mark to “promote charitable giving” and saw no reason why it should be rejected.
Moments in history
The ‘Je suis Charlie’ applications are reminiscent of other trademark bids in the US that have been launched for terms arising from tragedy.
In December 2014, WIPR reported on the attempt by Catherine Crump to trademark ‘I can’t breathe’ in the US. The saying had been used widely on social media and by celebrities to show solidarity with Garner, who died after an incident with the police in New York.
A video released online appeared to show Garner being held round the neck by a police officer following a dialogue between the pair. “I can’t breathe” was reportedly the last thing Garner said.
Rachel Kronman, associate at law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, describes the trend as “opportunism”. In another example, the USPTO rejected numerous attempts to trademark the phrase ‘Boston Strong’, popularised after five people lost their lives when bombs were set off during the Boston Marathon.
“The applicants are trying to capitalise on an attention-grabbing moment in history. Many of these kinds of applications are not part of a real business plan. Instead, people or entities see an opportunity to secure rights for ‘trademark trolling’ or other exploitation,” she says.
“Public rallying cries become so widespread that their use is ubiquitous. When consumers are used to seeing a slogan in everyday speech it cannot be used to identify only one source, so it cannot function as a trademark.
“The public react poorly when they perceive that someone is trying to take advantage of a tragedy or own and control a slogan that is part of the public discourse,” she adds.
With slogans and messages of support in the wake of tragedy becoming ever more common, what will be the next attempt to trademark a popularised phrase?
