While the author is trying to push the idea that wal-mart is trying to 'own' the smiley face, it simply is NOT TRUE. But I think most readers have come to expect such 'fact-substitution' from Deanna.

There is a difference between copyright, which would entail 'ownership', and trademark, which is what wal-mart is trying to do. This is a often made mistake for the general public when it comes to business law . Mal-mart is applying for trademark status in using THAT PARTICULAR SMILEY when used along with its business practices.

What this does is stop someone from just lifting the wal-mart graphic and using it on sites that are outside of wal-marts business environment.

Unfortunately, the ORIGINAL author did not think it was necessary to protect his ideas with the force of the law. Which is his choice to make. Under the law as it is now, he has no rights to it at all. Wal-mart can come along and do this simply because the original 'inventor' chose NOT to do this.

While I harbor no love for wal-mart, and go out of my way to NOT shop there, this is simply an exaggeration of the facts. It is completely within the law for wal-mart to file this claim with the USTPO.

For further reading, I suggest the USTPO website page that fully describes the legal protections of copyright, trademark, and servicemark. Hint to readers: the author didnt think it was important enough to check the facts before reacting to what she THOUGHT was true, not what actually WAS true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the hell was that thing ever "counter-culture"??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... all of the anti-walmart groups who are co-opting their smiley.

riiiiiiiight.

I worked at a walmart for a couple years in highschool and college. I watched my grandmother work there for over a decade. I saw this company go from a relatively minor evil that at least had some halfway decent benefits (their stock program, time and a half on sunday) to a company that was exploiting the world for huge profits and did not really give a damn about its workers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

well, i saw it a couple of years ago in a move about this guy who was sort of dumb but smart. he ran across the country and said and did lots of things. he was, what you call, an "inspiration" i think his name was forest gump. yes, i think he had something to do with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

examples

seen here

here

and here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That friekin' smiley face, dumb and banal as your average American car rear window with it's puerile flag and stuffed animals, I say Walmart and Smiley are perfect for each other. Let 'em have a patent on it, then we can laugh at how goddamned stupid both MalWart and Smiley are, going to hell together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ordinary people will remember the smiley face from previous Wal-Mart commercials.

Wal-Mart can't trademark it, and they know it. End of story? No.

Now there will be a new spin on it. Ordinary people already know what a smiley face is. They will probably think of Wal-Mart, in the back of their minds, whenever they see any smiley face.

Just to help things along, now they will remember the words "trademark" along with it. In the back of their minds.

Look at it this way:

In the end, all will be forgotten. The actual legal battle will be lost by Wal-Mart.

But, and here's the kicker: Ordinary folks will still associate these words. Wal-Mart, smiley face, and trademark.

Wal-Mart wins!

That's all, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you visit the TTAB page, the BBC article looks a little misleading.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=75302439&pty=EXT

Opposition #: 91156646 91154632 91157129

LOUFRANI, Franklin wanted to registered 75/302,439, a smiley face with SMILEY written on the bottom, and was opposed by half the world: KELLOGG COMPANY, MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED, AMERICA ONLINE, INC., WAL-MART STORES, INC., JOE BOXER COMPANY, LLC., and Yahoo! Inc.

And, like you said, it's not like the smiley face will be stolen from The People. Obtaining the mark (which I don't know if they're even trying to do, there's no Wal-Mart serial number in the opposition) would only prevent other retailers from using a similar logo.

Much ado about very little.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]