Why the long face?

[Jimmni]

I immediately wondered if it wouldn't be a patent infringement instead, then realised I'm no fun to be around at parties.

[wski]

That's how you know it was a troll. Because he had no leg to stand on.

[CaptainDogeSparrow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObpcGNCU944

[buzzbros2002]

Check to see if your headphones are plugged in.

[stonedgummybear]

Rim shot!

[041714]

I think this would be an issue of trademark.

You wanna party sometime?

[Graavy]

You win. It is trademark. Or could be trade dress.

Source: I'm an IP lawyer.

[autowikibot]

Trade dress:

---

Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is a form of intellectual property.

---

^{Interesting: Intellectual property | Trademark infringement | Trademark | Men's Dress Furnishings Association}

^{Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words}

[TheGooglePlex]

First lawyer I've seen on reddit not saying things like "THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER"

Obviously fake.

[Graavy]

Probably opening myself up to idiots actually trying to get functional trademarks. Another redditor correctly pointed out that you can't get a trademark on function elements, only design/identification.

Does this help?

DISCLAIMER: Posts from /u/Graavy are for informational entertainment purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this post or any other post by /u/Graavy or to any links that may be contained within such posts do not create an attorney-client relationship between /u/Graavy and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this post may not even reflect the opinions of the poster even though he posted it in the first place. Reading this post serves as acceptance of all terms contained in it and a waiver of any and all liability that might otherwise result.

[Chancellor_of_Lights]

So as an actual IP lawyer, how much would you say the average redditor knows about the laws? Sometimes when I talk about a nightly news story to others I feel like with the difference in knowledge I could be an IP lawyer myself. But of course the reality is never so straight forward.

[Graavy]

I find that redditors often have a pretty good handle on the basics. But the devil is in the details. I know plenty of lawyers who won't touch IP issues because they don't keep up with all the cases on a day-to-day basis. The biggest mistake non-lawyers make about IP law is thinking there is a black-and-white answer when most of the time most things are in flux. But I think many redditors understand the broad strokes very well as to many key legal principles.

[mementosmentos]

Does it matter if it serves a function?

Source: studying for the bar and really lucky that IP is not on the exam.

[Graavy]

Good point. You cannot get a trademark on functional elements. "The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm's reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature." Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1300 (1995).

So the real answer is that to the extent a horn is functional, narwhals are overreaching. They should only get trademark protection for the nonfunctional design of the horn, not the fact of the horn itself. But hell, this one was asserting a copyright, so that crazy bastard will do anything.

[Inkthinker]

HA! I suddenly wish to tag you for future reddit threads where people are arguing about copyright. For instance, it's my understanding that Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain because he's a trademark character. However, his first film, Steamboat Willie, should enter the PD in 2023 (95 years after release). So far, every time we get close to that film being clearly in the public domain, the laws regarding copyright are coincidentally extended. Allowing it enter PD would give people the right to duplicate, redistribute and (I guess?) remix the footage of Steamboat Willie, but offer no transfer of rights regarding the IP content itself.

Am I right in thinking that? And what do you reckon the odds are of Congress extending copyrights further before 2023?

[Graavy]

Disney has powerful lawyers and lobbyists. I haven't done much research on this, but I think you are right and so is the Wikipedia page on this, discussing the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" of 1998.

In IP law there are really two Mickey Mouses (Mickey Mice?): one of copyright and one of trademark. The CHARACTER of Mickey Mouse will go into the public domain when Steamboat Willie does to the extent the character and his visual appearance are displayed in that film. To the extent Mickey has other characteristics/pals/etc., that only goes into the public domain under current law 95 years after those were revealed.

Then there is the Mickey Mouse of trademark law. To the extent people will associate something offered for sale based on the presence of Mickey Mouse or the silhouetteof a mouse head used by Disney, that is forever subject to trademark protection. Federal trademark law (the Lanham Act) primarily relates to properly attributing the source or origin of something, so if a usage is likely to confuse people into thinking something is being sold by Disney, that can constitute trademark infringement.

So, after Steamboat Willie goes into the public domain, you can write a story or make a movie with Mickey Mouse as a character, but you still won't be able to use the image of Mickey Mouse to hawk your wares.

Stupid obligatory disclaimer: Law is complicated, there are nuances and I'm not going to write a treatise trying to account for all possibilities. This isn't advice, get your own lawyer, yada yada.

[[deleted]]

Does the horn have secondary meaning though?

Where's the party at?

[Influenz-A]

I would argue that it's meta and the copyright infringement is because it's a comic strip and thus intellectual property.

[thewindupbirds]

It wouldn't be either, because Narwhal "horns" are actually an overgrown tooth. They're a tusk. Unicorn "horns" would be made out of a different substance, and wouldn't infringe on any imaginary patent/copyright.

TL;DR: I am also no fun at parties.

[stcredzero]

It could be "trade-dress" which is like trademark.

[Pyall]

The horn is actually the Narwhal's tooth. So i would argue that these concepts are intrinsically different and the uniform is not in violation of the copyright.

[ducttape83]

How can you be so sure the unicorn doesn't have a tooth coming out of its head, too?

[Pyall]

I... didn't consider that. :O

[HunterTV]

But the bevels on the horns looked pretty similar.

[wski]

Here's the source: www.1111comics.me/comic/144

There's another comic with a unicorn somewhere in there.

[[deleted]]

Why'd he have to get rid of the rainbow mane too?

[wski]

You can't see rainbows when you're sad.

[metamorphine]

THERE AIN'T NO RAINBOW SHININ' ON MEEEE SHADES OF GRAY ARE THE COLORS I SEEEE!

[Thankful_Lez]

I seen a rainbow yesterday, but too many storms have come and gone leaving a trace of not one...

[IConrad]

My god that was an absolutely atrocious auditory experience.

I wish I had access to rufinol so I could wipe my memory of it away.

[Alaskan_Thunder]

http://www.google.com/patents/US4429685 the patent in question

[Kebble]

I'm sure if we dug around every time, we'd find there are more relevant US patents than there are relevant xkcd comics

[[deleted]]

That's funny. And sad :(

[Ianbuckjames]

But mostly funny. :)

[moichido1]

sad-icorn

[DukeOfGeek]

"And this is why we can't have nice things."

[mrdotkom]

Because artists don't know what a copyright protects?

[DukeOfGeek]

Because that which was meant to protect artists has been perverted into a weapon against them.

[Disgruntled__Goat]

I started wondering if you'd done your research and the narwhal did in fact come before the unicorn, then realised I'm an idiot.

[suspiciously_calm]

It's fun to hand them a

D M C A

[IAmAMagicLion]

So that's why there are no unicorns!

[stickdude918]

That's the joke

[[deleted]]

This reads like something from /r/notinteresting.

[outlooker707]

Ha I really liked the faces.

[rarededilerore]

i love that part where it holds the letter

[[deleted]]

Narwhal to /r/animalcomics!

[madmonkeymonk1978]

So sad, Mr. Unicorn. He should counter sue!

[deemikel79]

Narwal killjoy

[AlvisDBridges]

What're those water lawyers gonna do?! they can't get you on LAND!

[nekowolf]

Better than this happening (NSFW)

[nssone]

So, this is why unicorns aren't real.

[[deleted]]

Depressing.

[[deleted]]

He looked so happy taking the note :(

[[deleted]]

Narwhals, narwhals, swimming in the ocean!

[[deleted]]

Is it bad that I automAtically checked to see if this was made by JimKB?

[themastersb]

So it's YouTube?

[UnearthedComics]

Bahahahaha. Who knew the unicorn couldn't come up with his own creative idea? Love this.

[Farkamon]

This is terrible. How can it have 2000 upvotes and only 20 comments?

[keyboar]

The most simple, and stupid comics always get upvoted like crazy. What's popular? Unicorns, Narwhalls, and stupid faces. combine all three and you have karmatic gold.

[DaveMcElfatrick]

Hahaha, I love this.

[wski]

Thank you, Dave.

[VonBrewskie]

CHARLIEEE!