{"id":1557,"date":"2012-09-11T19:19:50","date_gmt":"2012-09-11T19:19:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/?p=1557"},"modified":"2022-04-06T13:10:30","modified_gmt":"2022-04-06T20:10:30","slug":"muni-vs-n-judah-chronicles-and-the-san-francisco-copyright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/2012\/09\/11\/muni-vs-n-judah-chronicles-and-the-san-francisco-copyright\/","title":{"rendered":"muni vs N Judah Chronicles and the San Francisco copyright"},"content":{"rendered":"

Updated September 15, 2012 > N Judah has a new victory post<\/a><\/p>\n

Updated September 14, 2012, Greg Dewar’s designs have been restored!<\/a> Congrats to Greg for networking, speaking up about it and standing up for his rights<\/p>\n

updated September 13, 2012 > Greg Dewar now has his own post about it on N judah Chronicles<\/a>. Also, SF Weekly now has an article on it with new info including the takedown letter<\/a> and that Dewar wasn’t even the intended target in the first place<\/p>\n

Updated SFWeekly archive 2022 link with Archive.org<\/p>\n

http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121003054953\/https:\/\/blogs.sfweekly.com\/thesnitch\/2012\/09\/n_judah_muni_t_shirt.php<\/a><\/p>\n

Now it looks like it’s all Zazzle’s screw up- I did call the city attorney and Robin Reitzes and Reitzes wouldn’t get back to me so the original post below stands
\nThis stills smells funny. If the take down letter didn’t mention Dewar’s account, then how did Zazzle take notice?. By searching their own archives for anything MUNI just to be sure nothing’s left? I don’t think so, because only two items were removed while 4 others were left standing in Dewars account. Now how did Zazzle know which items to remove and which items to leave in if Dewar was never mentioned in the take down letter? This doesn’t add up. Especially since one of the items were specifically targeted in the letter that was sent to Dewar<\/a>
\n—original post—————
\nSeptember 11, 2012
\nThe San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, otherwise known as MUNI has apparently sent a cease and desist to the owner of N Judah Chronicles<\/a>. More specifically, MUNI sent a letter to Zazzle for a claim against Greg Dewar’s T-Shirts<\/a>.
\n This is the first twitter post about it<\/p>\n

\nhttps:\/\/twitter.com\/njudah\/status\/245290629230383105<\/a>
\nGreg Dewar @njudah
\nIt’s confirmed: @sfmta_muni told @Zazzle to kill off my t shirt designs and my poster celebrating the 80th anniversary of the N. Jerks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty even tweeted about this
\n\"bevan.dufty.n.judah.tees\"<\/a>
\nBy coincidence, I happened to be doing research on an urban legend that the City and County of San Francisco has a copyright on the name San Francisco and that the city gets royalties from it. These two stories are both related because State and City flags and seals cannot be trademarked, but logos of agencies within the government can trademark logos and slogans, see (PDF) > http:\/\/www.cllaw.us\/papers\/IMLA_Trademark_Paper.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\u2022 The city of San Francisco holds a copyright on the name “San Francisco.” It is illegal to manufacture any item with the name without first getting permission from the city. Since the Supreme Court upheld the copyright, San Francisco has had an annual $300 million surplus every year. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This statement is repeated on many blogs<\/a> and even the San Francisco Examiner<\/a> and an attorney who should know better<\/a>. It is completely false and the city attorneys office will confirm it. First of all, a location cannot be copyrighted by itself. This is explained partially at Chilling Effects<\/a> on why the Star Trek movies can use stock footage of San Francisco freely because it’s not copyrightable. What San Francisco does<\/em> have a copyright on is the logo for the official seal of the City of San Francisco<\/a>, and only that seal\/logo. That is copyrightable because it is a design that somebody made, and is not the name San Francisco itself. In other words, you cannot be selling t-shirts with that official seal without permission, but you can freely use the words “San Francisco” and make your own logo. The name San Francisco is not trademarked by itself which is why there are numerous companies that have trademarked names with the words San Francisco in it, like Bike San Francisco<\/a>, for example or even I Left My Heart in San Francisco<\/a> which is trademarked by the private San Francisco visitors bureau
\nWith that out of the way, on to the MUNI threats. First of all I do not have a copy of the letter that MUNI sent to Zazzle regarding the T-shirts that supposedly infringe on MUNI’s trademark<\/em>, but there’s only a couple of possibilities because it must involve a trademark. As far as anybody knows it involves the train logo
\n\"njudah.twitter1a\"<\/a>
\n Note, this is not a copyright, but a trademark. To know the difference between copyrights and trademarks, see here<\/a>. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority does have several trademarks on the name MUNI, including the classic wavy line logo<\/a>
\nHere are two of the designs that MUNI requested that Zazzle remove
\n\"The<\/a>
\n\"80th<\/a>
\nThe remaining designs on Zazzle were not asked to be taken down<\/a>
\nThe most important thing here is that the official logos were never used in any of the designs. This first one is obviously a parody, while the second 80th anniversary is the only one where MUNI could have a case, but that doesn’t use the official logo either, but there might be a possibility of confusion. Of course, without the official logo, it’s pretty hard for anyone to imagine that they would be official products of MUNI. the SFMTA doesn’t have a trademark on any of he buses, trains or trolleys, just the three logos below, one of which is no longer active. The problem is, this is just Zazzle, a company that isn’t about to fight for a small time t-shirt maker, no matter how good a case it might be for Dewar. It would probably be a different story if it actually was challenged in court
\nBelow are the two official<\/em> trademarked MUNI logos that are still registered and active with the United States Patent and Trademark office. There are no trademarks for any of the individual MUNI lines such as the N Judah
\ndesign 1, the train logo. This trademark is actually dead and cancelled and can no longer be used by MUNI unless they re-register it, so anyone is free to use it in any way shape or form (although MUNI might still send threatening letters, like they did here)
\n\"muni.trademark1c\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\nhttp:\/\/tess2.uspto.gov\/bin\/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:b3re53.2.22<\/a>
\nWord Mark SF MUNI
\nGoods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Printed paper tickets. FIRST USE: 19690624. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20000701
\nMark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND\/OR NUMBERS
\nDesign Search Code 18.05.04 – Buses; Cable cars, trolley; Trolleys
\nSerial Number 76037545
\nFiling Date May 1, 2000
\nCurrent Basis 1A
\nOriginal Filing Basis 1B
\nPublished for Opposition May 28, 2002
\nRegistration Number 2702948
\nRegistration Date April 1, 2003
\nOwner (REGISTRANT) City and County of San Francisco MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 401 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94102
\nDisclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “SF” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
\nType of Mark TRADEMARK
\nRegister PRINCIPAL
\nLive\/Dead Indicator DEAD
\nCancellation Date November 7, 2009\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

design 2, the token
\n\"muni.trademark1b\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\nhttp:\/\/tess2.uspto.gov\/bin\/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:e0rvog.3.37<\/a>
\nWord Mark SF MUNICIPAL RAILWAY
\nGoods and Services IC 014. US 002 027 028 050. G & S: METAL COINS, NAMELY TRANSIT TOKENS. FIRST USE: 19450101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19450101
\nMark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND\/OR NUMBERS
\nDesign Search Code 24.07.01 – Coins; Money (coins)
\n26.01.02 – Circles, plain single line; Plain single line circles
\n26.01.13 – Circles, two (not concentric); Two circles
\n26.01.16 – Circles touching or intersecting
\n26.01.17 – Circles, two concentric; Concentric circles, two; Two concentric circles
\nSerial Number 75868221
\nFiling Date December 10, 1999
\nCurrent Basis 1A
\nOriginal Filing Basis 1A
\nPublished for Opposition February 24, 2004
\nRegistration Number 2842063
\nRegistration Date May 18, 2004
\nOwner (REGISTRANT) City and County of San Francisco MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1 South Van Ness Ave. 3rd Ave. San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94103
\nAttorney of Record Robin M. Reitzes
\nDisclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “MUNICIPAL RAILWAY” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
\nDescription of Mark The lining is a feature of the mark and does not indicate color.
\nType of Mark TRADEMARK
\nRegister PRINCIPAL-2(F)
\nAffidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR).
\nLive\/Dead Indicator LIVE\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

design 3, the most famous logo
\n\"muni.trademark1a\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\nhttp:\/\/tess2.uspto.gov\/bin\/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:e0rvog.3.42<\/a>
\nWord Mark MUNI
\nGoods and Services IC 039. US 100 105. G & S: Public transportation of passengers by motor coach, electrically powered vehicle, light-rail vehicle, cable car and paratransit. FIRST USE: 19740101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19740101
\nMark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND\/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
\nSerial Number 75868216
\nFiling Date December 10, 1999
\nCurrent Basis 1A
\nOriginal Filing Basis 1A
\nPublished for Opposition August 29, 2000
\nRegistration Number 2406171
\nRegistration Date November 21, 2000
\nOwner (REGISTRANT) City and County of San Francisco MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CALIFORNIA One South Van Ness Ave. 3rd floor San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94103
\nAttorney of Record Robin M. Reitzes
\nDescription of Mark The mark consists of the word “MUNI” in a stylized design.
\nType of Mark SERVICE MARK
\nRegister PRINCIPAL
\nAffidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20091202.
\nRenewal 1ST RENEWAL 20091202
\nLive\/Dead Indicator LIVE\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

More importantly, the attorney of record, Robin Reitzes is at the City Attorneys office, also from the same USPTO record. This means that effectively, the City and County of San Francisco and the city attorneys office are going after a local blogger for making parody t-shirts of MUNI<\/p>\n

Owner Name: City and County of San Francisco
\nOwner Address: One South Van Ness Ave.
\n3rd floor
\nSan Francisco, CALIFORNIA 94103
\nUNITED STATES
\nLegal Entity Type: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION State or Country Where Organized: CALIFORNIA
\nAttorney\/Correspondence Information
\nAttorney of Record
\nAttorney Name: Robin M. Reitzes
\nCorrespondent
\nCorrespondent Name\/Address: Robin M. Reitzes
\nCity Attorney’s Office
\n1390 Market St.
\n6th floor
\nSan Francisco, CALIFORNIA 94102
\nUNITED STATES
\nPhone: 415-554-4260 Fax: 415-255-3139
\nCorrespondent e-mail: robin.reitzes@sfgov.org Correspondent e-mail Authorized: Yes<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lets assume for a minute that the logos in the t-shirts are<\/em> close enough to be confused and that MUNI has a case for infringement. There is still the issue that the t-shirts are a parody and\/or criticism, which usually trumps trademark laws just by itself. There are numerous cases where this has happened, like North Face vs South Butt<\/a> and Louis Vuitton vs Chewy Vuiton<\/a>
\nYes this is very funny and so is Greg Dewar’s designs, and that is the key. If it is funny it will usually stand up especially when it involves a famous name like MUNI.
\nThis seriously looks like a case of trademark bullying<\/a> and intimidation by MUNI and it probably will never win in court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Updated September 15, 2012 > N Judah has a new victory post Updated September 14, 2012, Greg Dewar’s designs have been restored! Congrats to Greg …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[19],"class_list":["post-1557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4-San-Francisco","tag-san-francisco"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1557"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1557\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3414,"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1557\/revisions\/3414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}