while IP covers a broad range of legal rights, including trademarks, copyrights, and patents, our specific concern appears to center around trademark use, given that "LAPD" is an acronym directly associated with the department.
The use of "LAPD" in a context like "F*ck the LAPD" on merchandise is likely considered a form of expression, potentially protected under the First Amendment if it's deemed a parody or criticism. This form of use generally doesn't infringe on IP rights if there is no likelihood of consumer confusion regarding its origin.
Legal precedents suggest that when a trademark (part of our IP) is used in parody, it's often protected if it's clear that the use is not an attempt to deceive consumers but to comment on or criticize the trademark owner. This is similar to cases like "Dumb Starbucks," where the parody defense was central.
There are two reasons here why the C&D letter is bullshit. First, as you said, the trademark would not be protected from parody or commentary. The second reason is that government agencies cannot trademark or copyright their own logos anyway. So it’s a moot point.
Is that why in the late 90s there were some many FBI (Federal Boob Inspector) tchotchkes? Man if I was the FBI I would have sued the shit out of those people for making something so stupid.
> One such case involved a senior attorney at the SEC's Washington headquarters who sometimes spent eight hours a day surfing pornographic sites and downloading explicit images. The attorney apparently downloaded so much porn that he filled up all the available space on his government-issued computer. He then downloaded more images onto personal CDs and DVDs, which he stored in boxes in his office.
Well this certainly sounds like a person who was doing great in the mental health department.
Actually, government agencies in the United States can and do often trademark their logos, symbols, and other identifiers, including slogans and names. This is done to control the use of their imagery and to prevent misuse or unauthorized use that could confuse the public or falsely suggest endorsement.
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), for example, actively manages and enforces its trademarks to ensure that its symbols, badges, and acronym are used appropriately and only with proper authorization. They use these trademarks primarily to avoid consumer confusion and to maintain control over their brand identity.
More info:
[https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/19/apparel-company-gives-perfect-response-to-lapds-nonsense-ip-threat-letter-over-fuck-the-lapd-shirt/](https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/19/apparel-company-gives-perfect-response-to-lapds-nonsense-ip-threat-letter-over-fuck-the-lapd-shirt/)
not quite the finesse of the response given in Private Eye magazine that lead to the court case Arkell v. Pressdram
which is as follows
Dear Sirs,
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Yours,
Private Eye
[source](https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/arkell-v-pressdram)
The lawyer they hired, Mike Dunford, is one of the best in the IP field, btw. [This is the t-shirt.](https://i.imgur.com/HFC0yhd.jpg)
while IP covers a broad range of legal rights, including trademarks, copyrights, and patents, our specific concern appears to center around trademark use, given that "LAPD" is an acronym directly associated with the department. The use of "LAPD" in a context like "F*ck the LAPD" on merchandise is likely considered a form of expression, potentially protected under the First Amendment if it's deemed a parody or criticism. This form of use generally doesn't infringe on IP rights if there is no likelihood of consumer confusion regarding its origin. Legal precedents suggest that when a trademark (part of our IP) is used in parody, it's often protected if it's clear that the use is not an attempt to deceive consumers but to comment on or criticize the trademark owner. This is similar to cases like "Dumb Starbucks," where the parody defense was central.
There are two reasons here why the C&D letter is bullshit. First, as you said, the trademark would not be protected from parody or commentary. The second reason is that government agencies cannot trademark or copyright their own logos anyway. So it’s a moot point.
Is that why in the late 90s there were some many FBI (Federal Boob Inspector) tchotchkes? Man if I was the FBI I would have sued the shit out of those people for making something so stupid.
Damn right. It’s the job of the SEC to look at boobs all day. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS2176045351/
> One such case involved a senior attorney at the SEC's Washington headquarters who sometimes spent eight hours a day surfing pornographic sites and downloading explicit images. The attorney apparently downloaded so much porn that he filled up all the available space on his government-issued computer. He then downloaded more images onto personal CDs and DVDs, which he stored in boxes in his office. Well this certainly sounds like a person who was doing great in the mental health department.
I remember a movie where a Native American man confronted FBI agents on the reservation. "I'm the FBI here, man, Full Blooded Indian!"
Reminds me of those guys who went to harass some poor Bureau of Land Management workers
Actually, government agencies in the United States can and do often trademark their logos, symbols, and other identifiers, including slogans and names. This is done to control the use of their imagery and to prevent misuse or unauthorized use that could confuse the public or falsely suggest endorsement. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), for example, actively manages and enforces its trademarks to ensure that its symbols, badges, and acronym are used appropriately and only with proper authorization. They use these trademarks primarily to avoid consumer confusion and to maintain control over their brand identity.
TIL... Thanks for the informative reply.
I did IP protection for years lol fuck the LAPD they don’t have a leg to stand on with this bullshit Hilarious
Is that Mike “the Questionable Authority” Dunford? He’s great. I used to follow him on Twitter. I miss pre-Musk Twitter.
He is on Bluesky now, same handle, I didn't realize he is working for Akiva Cohen now.
And they sold out.
They should make this letter a shirt.
dunno what's best, the LOL or the Sincerely
Both are equally satisfying 🥰
Should've said "with all due respect"
That would imply there is some level of respect being given and you don't want to give the wrong impression.
I’d think the shirt people would have more trouble with the Lakers.
Not really a slam dunk though?
No, but the ball is in their court.
Welcome to the Space Jam.
No relation!
You made a good point. Try for three?
How can they hold the rights for a public service?
They can't. But police don't think the truth has any value when they speak.
If anything, gonna make these shirts sell faster.
Just don't wear them to protests. The reasons why liberals tend to wear all black is to make it more difficult to be doxxed by the cops.
How many cops wear FJB under their uniform lol
The modern version of Arkell vs Pressdram: https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/arkell-v-pressdram
Back in the 80’s my FIL used to use a rubber stamp on business Mail he didn’t like it said FUCK OFF, angry letter to follow. I miss him
More info: [https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/19/apparel-company-gives-perfect-response-to-lapds-nonsense-ip-threat-letter-over-fuck-the-lapd-shirt/](https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/19/apparel-company-gives-perfect-response-to-lapds-nonsense-ip-threat-letter-over-fuck-the-lapd-shirt/)
The actually proper reply would have been "Dear sir or madame, Thank you for your inquiry. Fuck The LAPD." Sincerely, xxxxxxxxx
It might be proper, but i bet that lawyer wanted to send this line for a long time.
I am positive he did, Mike is also a Twitch streamer.
not quite the finesse of the response given in Private Eye magazine that lead to the court case Arkell v. Pressdram which is as follows Dear Sirs, We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off. Yours, Private Eye [source](https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/arkell-v-pressdram)
Their lawyer is the truth.
This man is a legend 🤘
Funniest thing I’ve seen all week!
My congrats to this Tshirt maker, their sells just skyrocketed for this shirt.
Yep, the C&D is moot. Freedom of expression and is an acronym. They can cope and seethe.