Trademark & Copyright

Yeezys Vs. Walmart

There is a lawsuit going on between Kanye Wests Brand "Yeezy" and the Walmart due to trademark infringement due to Walmart allegedly selling "copycat foam runner shoes in their stores.

To begin, lets dissect this argument from Trademark claims. We must first of all ask, "Is it trademarkable?" For something to be “trademarkable” it must be distinctive, and in order for it to be distinctive, it must have attained secondary meaning. The article stated that Yeezy in fact did not trademark the make of the alleged copycat shoes. Otherwise this would be a rather clear trademark infringement claim.

However, looking further, West and Yeezy allege “unjust enrichment based upon Walmart’s willfully trading off the renown of Kanye West and his iconic YEEZY brand” and that consumers are purchasing the look-alike shoes from Walmart with “the mistaken belief that the shoes are associated with West and the YEEZY brand."

Yeezy does have a trademark claim for the Walmart brand shoes are confusing consumers and are creating a dilution of the Yeezy brand. Dilution is defined as, accusing one of weakening a brand, by taking some of the power with the others item. This can happen one of two days:

1. Blurring: blurring consumers confusion by trying to do brand association

2. Tarnishment: damaging the reputation of the brand (reputational harm)

Yeezy's claim that Walmarts copycat shoes are causing a blurring effect on consumers views of the Yeezy brand which is then giving Walmart the use of the Yeezy brand for financial gain. This will become a main support in Yeezy's case claim. Much of the confusion is coming from the online comments on Walmarts website and social media of their foam sole shoes having references to “Yeezy."

While Walmart's version is “budget friendly” and more affordable than the genuine Yeezy shoe, the dilution aspect is connecting the Walmart retailers to the Luxury brands reputation and is profiting off of it. While comparative advertising would be allowed due to commercial and comparative advertising with Virginia Board of Pharmacy, there could be a defense of Walmart doing comparative advertising, while Yeezy can claim a "piggybacking" effect off of the brands reputation.

Yeezy and West can prove that actual confusion among consumers does exists based on comments on social media referencing “Walmart Yeezy’s” and the availability of “Foam Runners at Walmart,” and that consumers are already associating the Walmart look-alikes with Kanye West and Yeezy even though the companies have no relationship and Yeezy did not authorize Walmart to make or sell the iconic shoes. However there could be a contract t hat would allow the brand association however this is not the case.

Walmart Vs. Yeezy Logo Disput

While Yeezy's name is trademarkable since it reaches the ambiguity level of trademark coverage, they ran into a logo trademark dispute with Walmart as well. Walmart appealed that the Yeezy logo was similar to theirs and that it would cause a confusion between the two brands, which would hurt Walmart’s reputation. They argued said that it could cause confusion due to the fact that they in fact do collaborations with celebrities it raises the chances that if consumers saw the two logos, they would assume they were related. While there are differences between the two logos, there is a high risk for consumer confusion which has led to the current situation where consumers are thinking there was a Yeezy-Walmart collaboration. The article shares that West should distinguish his logo and brand as much as possible, if you don't want this to happen why keep a logo that is similar at a first glance?

Google Vs. French Publishers

Our second article revealed that Google is having a $593 million fine thrown their way due to a major breach of a copyright contract. This is not a typical copyright where one necessarily "took the work" of another and put it in their own product/work, but more so a creator is not getting recognized or accurately compensated for the use of their work to be distributed to others as agreed upon within a previously created contract.

Google was originally ruled to negotiate fair deals with news publishers for the use of their content. They had agreed to a copyright deal with the French publishers, they were frustrated because it did not cover any payment for work or their services for the current content that Google was using.

In short, the deal was an agreement between Google and French publishers that Google will now pay them for their news. However, just months later they then violated this deal by not paying them so little or at all. This is a copyright claim due to the fact that the agree'd upon contract conditions that were agreed upon by BOTH parties we not being followed.

This break of contract allows the publishers to claim copyright on the work used by Google on their website due to them technically not having consent since the conditions were not met. Clearly, the French publishers are already willing to give consent, Google just needs to make matters "fair" for the other party involved. Due to their failure to comply, they were fined appropriately $593 million, which hopefully will allow these parties to feel justified and to move forward following their new contract where matters are fairly met.