Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Patents The Courts

EU Court Blocks Brazilian Company From Trademarking Sound Of a Ringing Phone (arstechnica.co.uk) 111

Posted by msmash from the nope-can't-do-that dept.
The standard ringing from an alarm clock or a telephone is too boring and banal to be registered as a trademark within the EU, a top court has ruled. The judgment was handed down by the EU General Court (EGC), blocking a Brazilian company that had tried to claim ownership of the sound, Ars Technica reports. From its story: In 2014, the Brazilian mass media company Grupo Globo applied to register the globally familiar "ring-ring" sound "for the dissemination of information electronically, orally, or by means of television" -- guarding its use on all electronic devices and in media representations. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) at the time refused to register the jingle on the grounds that it had "no distinctive character," and that it was "a banal and commonplace ringtone which would generally go unnoticed and would not be remembered by the consumer." Globo -- the biggest media company in Latin America -- appealed EUIPO's decision at the EU General Court, which has today ruled that the sound is indeed too boring to register.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Court Blocks Brazilian Company From Trademarking Sound Of a Ringing Phone More

EU Court Blocks Brazilian Company From Trademarking Sound Of a Ringing Phone

Comments Filter:

  • Reading too much /. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Minupla ( 62455 ) <minupla@gmail.PASCALcom minus language> on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @09:13AM (#52878637) Homepage Journal

    Sounds like someone read the comments on here where people are forever saying they just patented and you owe them money, and said "Hey! Good idea!"

    • Their mistake was trying to trademark it in the EU. They should have done it here in the states; you can trademark just about anything here. Hell, there's a company that successfully claims ownership of the word "monster", a very common word that they claim trademark infringement on everything and anything from minigolf to movies.

      • Re: Reading too much /. (Score:4, Informative)

        by parkinglot777 ( 2563877 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @10:58AM (#52879387)

        Their mistake was trying to trademark it in the EU. They should have done it here in the states; you can trademark just about anything here. Hell, there's a company that successfully claims ownership of the word "monster", a very common word that they claim trademark infringement on everything and anything from minigolf to movies.

        Then you have no idea of differences between trademark, copyright, and patents... You can't trademark sound or lyric because they belong to copyright category. Also, protections are different too. If you really want to understand what they are, I suggested you to visit USPTO Trademark [uspto.gov] page, so that you wouldn't spread your misunderstanding/misinformation to others.

        PS: yes, you can trademark the word "monster" but it has to be tied to certain conditions.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jawnn ( 445279 )

          PS: yes, you can trademark the word "monster" but it has to be tied to certain conditions.

          Oh. So, for example, all I have to do is get people to buy my audio cables and wires for ten times what they're actually worth and I can trademark the word "Monster"? Got it.

          • all I have to do is get people to buy my audio cables and wires for ten times what they're actually worth and I can trademark the word "Monster"? Got it.

            Yes, you can. But if some other company wants to run a jobs board under the name "Monster" you have no rights to sue under trademark infringement.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dabadab ( 126782 )

          You can't trademark sound or lyric because they belong to copyright category.

          Trademark and copyright are two distinct aspects that have nothing to do with each other so there's nothing to prevent a thing to be both a trademark and under copyright protection (Mickey Mouse is a very prominent example of such).

          And of course you can trademark sound - even the USPTO website displays a collection of trademarked sounds [uspto.gov].

        • "You can't trademark sound or lyric because they belong to copyright category."

          Of course you can trade mark a song or lyric. All the requirement is for them being part of your Trade Mark. See how easy is it?

          On the other hand, what I don't understand is the justification of this rule -unless it has been misrepresented in the summary: the problem for the ring-ring sound to be trademarked by this company cannot be that it is "too boring" (or even commonplace) but that it -by being both common place and previ

        • You can't trademark sound or lyric because they belong to copyright category.

          Except that there are many companies which have obtained trademarks on distinctive sounds that they use for branding. There's a list of commonly-known examples in this Wikipedia article on the subject:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          I suggested you to visit USPTO Trademark page, so that you wouldn't spread your misunderstanding/misinformation to others.

          Because being wrong just wasn't embarrassing enough, you had to go and be all condescending about it as well. How's that egg on your face feel?

        • Then you have no idea of differences between trademark, copyright, and patents... You can't trademark sound or lyric

          Before correcting me on this, you might want to get an education, because you obviously lack one. Seriously. You can in fact trademark sounds. Want proof? How about a link directly to the government office that grants exactly those kinds of trademarks:

          http://www.uspto.gov/trademark... [uspto.gov]

          Seriously haven't you ever seen the beginning of MGM movies with the roaring lion, with the words "Trademark" written on it? Lo and behold, the roaring lion sound is trademarked. And, much more relevant to TFA, an example of a

      • successfully claims ownership of the word "monster"

        In a certain market. For example, I couldn't tell if you were talking about the cable manufacturer or the job search web site that owns monster.com. The idea behind trademarking generic words is that you do it for novel/memorable uses rather than what the word actually means.

        So you can call your computer Apple and own a trademark, but you can't trademark the word "phone" or a ringing sound for a telecommunications company.

    • Sounds like someone read the comments on here where people are forever saying they just patented and you owe them money, and said "Hey! Good idea!"

      I understand that you are talking about something related to intellectual properties (IPs) and make a joke about it, but I just want to clarify, "patent" != "trademark"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Minupla ( 62455 )

        Good point, usually I'm a stickler on that too, but I waved my comedic license at myself and gave me a pass. Glad to see someone call me on it tho (riiiiinnnnngggg :))

        Min

  • However boring and banal it is (Score:5, Funny)

    by Big Hairy Ian ( 1155547 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @09:15AM (#52878651)
    It's still more interesting than the latest Apple Conference

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by WallyL ( 4154209 )

      And is still a better love story than Twilight!

      And no, I'm leaving right now. But I'll be back to accept your thanks later.

  • Story too boring to read!

    • I dunno.

      The idea that our cultural landscape is essentially a frontier where corporations are prospectors and land-grabbers who seek to enclose certain areas, which they can then monopolise, lease back or otherwise own and exploit, whilst depriving others of the ability to do so, is something that isn't really given the consideration it's due, in my opinion.

      • Fair point. At least this time common sense prevailed.

        The concepts you talk about are really why I'm no fan of conservatives (the UK variety, who I have more experience of) - to me they are just saying that civilisation peaked with feudalism and being a rentier is the loftiest of goals.

  • Usually this is the type of situation where the decision is made to allow the "trademark" to go through.

    Nice to see that somewhere on this planet there's a judge that understands how to reasonably apply the law when it comes to patents and copyrights.

    • Nice to see that somewhere on this planet there's a judge that understands how to reasonably apply the law when it comes to patents and copyrights.

      Agreed. Good job judge.

      A copyright on the sound is just fine, which they all acknowledge. An audio recording deserves full protection under copyright law.

      But as a trademark, to say "the sound of a telephone is our distinctive mark", that is too broad. Trademarks need to be distinctive.

      As their name implies they are distinctive marks indicating the creator or distributor of goods, they are brand indicators. The generic bell ringing is not a distinctive brand by itself. They could trademark a series of

  • It's not theirs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @09:26AM (#52878735)

    Boring, Banal, and NOT THEIRS TO TRADEMARK.

    It reminds me of the Kraftwerk claim, someone used a repeated snare drum copied from one of their tracks, and they persued him for 19 years for copyright infringement. Eventually their claim was thrown out.

    They are a synthesizer band, they didn't make that drum sound, their synth did, if anyone owns that sound it would be Roland or Yamaha, not Kraftwerk. Yet they pursued and pursued it, all the way up through appeals court till they were finally told to f** off.

    Here the same, a company thought it could trademark two shrill 'G' tones if only they tried and tried long enough to wear down the system, (a la 'one click' ordering).

    • Somebody mod parent up, please. It's the only relevant post in this thread so far.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      What if it was theirs -- ie, they contracted with a bell manufacturer to create a set of bells with some kind of unique sound (ie, not bell #345 from the catalog), they attached them to a ringer mechanism and recorded the sound of *their* bells ringing.

      I wonder if that would pass muster, or if the idea of a mechanical bell ringing (ie, a brass hemisphere getting hit by a little hammer) is so common that not even a custom bell with a non-standard tone could count, as mechanical ringers are so ubiquitous (or

  • Too boring to register (Score:4, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @09:30AM (#52878771)

    Well, there goes the entirety of Justin Bieber's work.

  • the TPPA will over ride this (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @09:32AM (#52878785)

    the TPPA will over ride this

  • Neener neener (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @09:38AM (#52878827)

    Is that copyrighted too? Seriously, though, why did it need to get to the court level? Why didn't the copyright flunkies say, "Sorry, prior art. Tough noogies."?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      Why didn't the copyright flunkies say, "Sorry, prior art. Tough noogies."?

      This is what I'm wondering, that and since a phone itself is a manufactured device that originated from a specific entity, if anyone could legitimately claim any kind of rights, that entity should have any copyrights and trademarks, not some media company attempting to use it.

      I wish they'd ruled for the right reasons, but at least the ruling itself is better than if it'd gone the other way.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gsslay ( 807818 )

      Never fails on Slashdot. People simply do not understand trademark is not just another word for copyright, yet are happy to flaunt their total lack of understanding.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Is that copyrighted too? Seriously, though, why did it need to get to the court level? Why didn't the copyright flunkies say, "Sorry, prior art. Tough noogies."?

      Either you've made a deliberately subtle joke by misusing three unrelated parts of Intellectual Property law (like talking about a film called "Trek Wars") or you've misunderstood all of it...

      • Copyright is for an original creative work, e.g. a book, a song, a creative way to order or layout existing non-copyrightable facts like a recipe. The concept of "prior art" is meaningless.
      • Patent is for original inventions that are non-obvious to a notional worker who's skilled in the field but has zero originality.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      "copyrighted too"? This is about trade marks. "prior art" - this is about trade marks.

  • What about I Got You, Babe at 6AM over and over?

  • Don't think it's a generic ring (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Brazilian here.
    Since it's Globo we're talking about, i doubt it's a generic "ring ring" that they're trying to trademark. Globo has a characteristic jingle sound that they've been using for decades and that goes along with all their trademarks, commercials and other stuff. It sounds (and is described as) a "plim plim" and it's hard to hear that sound here in Brazil and not associate it with the their TV channel. You can hear it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    My bet is that this is what they're tryin

    • Sounds like a lower-pitched version of the Trimphone ringtone from the 1960s. I'm not convinced changing the pitch is a sufficiently creative contribution to warrant a trademark.

    • I don't think sound should be included in trademark. It has been in copyright category and should stay there. If they allow trademark for sound, they will open a can of worms that will result in many nasty consequences...

  • Best to strike while the iron is hot.

  • Not a ringing phone sound (Score:5, Informative)

    by Trikoloko ( 801416 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @10:36AM (#52879205)
    Brazilian here. This is what they tried to trademark (The last sound in the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    In Brazil, This is known as the "plim-plim". They have been using the sound for many (30+) years. I don't see how this can be compared to the sound of a ringing phone.

    • Thanks for the link! (no modpoints, sorry). It sounds similar to an POTS traditional phone to me, though.

    • Nice link! To Europeans, it might sound a lot like this one, or this one [youtube.com].
    • That sounds like a slightly electronic version of the two-short-rings used on old PBX equipment to indicate an internal call (i.e. from a co-worker). External calls had the regular long ring. While Grupo Globo may have been using it for 30+ years in Brazil, it's been in use in the rest of the world as long as I can remember (40+ years). If it's associated with "them" in Brazil, I would guess that that's because they probably had a near-monopoly on PBX equipment in your country.

      I agree with the court.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Maritz ( 1829006 )

      I don't see how this can be compared to the sound of a ringing phone.

      That's really, really weird. Because it sounds to me like a ringing phone. I wouldn't compare it to that sound, in the same way that I don't compare a bark to the sound a dog makes. They're the same thing.

  • Ask any brazilian and they tell you that is Globo's "plim-plim" (thats how we call it). I don't know where the phone related claim comes from, i only know it from TV, not ringtones...

    Here it is:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    It is decades old (since the 70s) and marks when the commercial breaks start and end. Thats how they used to signal to all regional re-transmitters when to switch to/from commercials. It is a very recognizable branding of Globo TV.

    "She stated, in particular, that that mark consisted o

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by hagnat ( 752654 )

      this is one of the few times where a big business trully has the right to trademark a simple sound.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dafradu ( 868234 )

        Some other simple sounds that appear to have a trademark: Intel pentium sound, espn 6 notes, NBC chimes

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        this is one of the few times where a big business trully has the right to trademark a simple sound.

        maybe in brazil. In Europe however, that sound is widely used as a generic telephone ring sound. If they had applied 30 years ago, before that style of telephone ring sound became a common option, they might have had a leg to stand on, but not now.

    • sorry it sounds like generic touch-tone phone ring tone, I've two phones in a carboard box in the closet at home that make that noise

    • Jesus wept. They aren't trying to invalidate the trademark in Brazil. They are simply pointing out that the sound might well be part of one country's pop culture, but here in Europe a ring-ring sound, whatever its pitch or interval, has been synonymous with telephone calls ever since Adam was a lad, so sorry Globo, you are at least sixty years too late.

  • This is also why Christmas carols are not trademarked.... They're too boring.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      You don't appear to know what a trademark is. There's a very educational post along those lines higher up in the comments. Give it a look if you get a sec.
  • Having "no distinctive character," and being "banal and commonplace" could fit for most of that too. somehow I think there's more to it than that or else tv shows would be public domain

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close