Robin – Thanks for the explanation. I knew as I was typing that I didn’t know enough to be saying anything, heh, but also knew there was a BIG disconnect here with the organization not allowing Jane to use the image for a publicity push designed (among other things) to bring the contest FREE PRESS!

A lawyer would know a lot more, Alison, but as you said, even beyond what is or isn’t technically trademark infringement is the question of why. would. the RWA. cut off a contest created basically to showcase its top award and its authors. Even if it is technically trademark infringement (and I don’t necessarily think that license holders even completely understand their own rights in many cases, assuming they have actually registered the trademark with the feds), why suppress a wholly non-commercial effort?

Hurrah for the forum.

The ATSNBN – sad. Every genre seems to be having vehement discussions about awards, so I went from SBTB to an SFF blog (written by an idiot) hoping that Bujold would move into paranormal romance because her books looked odd in the company of other Nebula/Hugo winners to a blog ranting about the Edgars. Vehement discussions about the awards and the winners are part of the fun. The saddest thing about the ATSNBN is the lack of publicity for the winners. Too bad the RWA thinks otherwise.

Okay, I do get that an advertiser using the name “Super Bowlâ€Â? to drive up his own revenue is stepping out of bounds.

The wacky thing is that the trademark holder has the right to license products based on the trademarked item at will — that’s the value of the trademark and also its protection. And even more ironically, even in trademark licensing situations, the holder of the license AND the entity granted rights to produce goods based on or related to the trademarked item both benefit economically. DA isn’t competing with the RWA or trying to copy the RITA for its own profit or even benefit. It’s not producing miniature statutes based on the RITA and giving them out. The whole point of trademark protection is to prevent confusion in the marketplace between the original product and something else. In this case, not only was there NO intention to confuse, but there was also no possibility, since Jane et all clearly credited and sought to bring attention to the original trademarked RITA and RWA. Which is the ultimate irony, eh — that the entire point of the contest was to honor the RITA!

“If you are describing what everybody perceives as the Super Bowl … that is a trademark infringement,” he said.

What I will never get about any of this trademark business (in this case the RITA though it brought to mind the Super Bowl) is how much publicity is brought to the contest by reader bloggers talking about it, even using the image of the statuette, i.e, where is the damage to the organization or to the reputation of the contest by allowing supporters to show the graphic, mention the name, and talk it up as long as they give proper attribution?

I. Do. Not. Get. It. Legalities or not.