The Great Change: Turning Cathy into a Lawyer

There are several Church's Chickens in the Philadelphia area -- 2 in suburban station alone. I love it too!

My guess on the first picture's question would be "nay." The sign company almost certainly got a license to do this-- not necessarily because it was legally required, but because it wouldn't want to piss off its clients by using their logos without asking for permission to put up these sorts of signs...

Mark

Although I think the answer may be "nay," I doubt that's why.

First, some facts: the billboard was over the Cummings Signs building. The logos included on the billboard seem to be those used on businesses in the area (note, for instance, the proximity of the Church's Chicken to the billboard and the inclusion of nearby Vanderbilt University's logo). This being the case, the billboard seems to be saying, "Here's all the local businesses whose signs we've made. Have us make yours!"

Did Cummings Signs get permission from these businesses to include them? I doubt it. While I suppose those businesses could be unhappy about being listed, given that it's fairly common for businesses to tout who their customers are it's probably not a big deal to them. Also, it's bonus advertising. Note, for example, that when I saw the Church's Chicken logo, I got hungry and went to look for one. (And had it not been just an hour since I'd already eaten lunch, I probably would have eaten there.)

Furthermore, it's doubtful whether these businesses could have given permission anyway. They themselves (for the most part) are franchises, and as such, licensees of the company that owned the trademark. Now, surely they are allowed (if not also required) to use those logos on the exteriors of their buildings. A business like Cummings Signs may be exactly who they need to hire to do this. But just because they are allowed to use the logo in prescribed circumstances doesn't mean they are allowed to give others permission to use it as well.

Ultimately it comes down to a question of law, and whether the way Cummings Signs used the logos constitutes some sort of infringement. For that, I'll get back to you, as I want to make sure I understand the ins and outs of the law in this area. But I do know enough so far (see the discussion about Dallas Cap and Emblem) to know that the answer is not obviously yes.

My bet is that Cummings (which is apparantly a fairly large multi-state concern) has contracts with the national corporations that puts Cummings on the list of authorized sign providers for franchisees. Franchisor's usually keep tight control of exterior signage used by franchises, sometime to the extent of providing it themselves at no special cost to the franchisee. My guess is that these contracts authorize Cummings to use the logos in certain ways on its own advertising materials. No way to prove this-- but I'm sticking with my theory. I just don't see a big league company risking pissing off its clients by using the logos without permission.

I defer to you on whether (absent contractual authorization by the trademark owner) this sort of sign would violate the law. My bet would be that it would. But I don't know anywhere near as much about intellectual property law as you do.

Mark

See for example, this brochure showing that they are an "approved vendor" for Yum (the franchisor of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, A&W, and Long John Silver's). http://www.cummingssigns.com/yum/yumawnings.htm My bet is they have a similar "approved vendor status" with other chains, and I bet that status is governed by a contract.

This is a tough case for tm infringement, which requires "likelihood of confusion" with respect to source. The typical case of tm infringement is if I open a restaurant that looks very similar to McDonalds, which causes people to think McDonalds endorsed the goods and services I sell. Here, I doubt you can prove that people are likely to be confused as to whether all these companies endorsed the signs company.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's not operative that a logo is being used, but HOW the logo is being used.

New blog entry!

http://journals.aol.com/derdumkauf/TheWayBetterthanCathysblogblog/

You neglected to mention the major drawback of Church's: It's always in the most dangerous part of town. I'm not trying to be racist because I'm not one, but I defy you to find a Church's located in an upscale, or a not-too-bad neighborhood you wouldn't mind walking in alone at night.

I've noticed that Church's does tend to track to neighborhoods with poorer and more minority populations, although the thought this raised for me was the concern that it may be an unhealthy staple in the local diet.

Retracting my comments about whether the logos could legally have been used without permission. I don't know that you are right, but I was still speaking out of my depth.

On the other hand, I stand by my guess that the sign company did have permission, notwithstanding the legal need to get it...

Mark

I see your point about asking for permission, even if not needing it, for the sake of customer goodwill. I'm sure many companies do that. But I still have the feeling that this one wasn't one of them. I can't exactly substantiate why, but it's the sense I get. Sort of because there are too many and the use is too incidental or something. Or, if permission was granted, it was with vague terms about using it on promotional materials. I'm not sure that there would have been explicit permission for the logos being put on a billboard. Especially surrounded by their competitors.