 |
||||||
 |
||||||
Friendly. In a Take-the-Money-if-You-Know-What's-Good-for-You Kind of Way. Once again someone has begged RedEye to cease and desist -- and this time it's not a media critic. A Los Angeles attorney says that if RedEye doesn't disappear the Tribune Company will be socked with a trademark-infringement suit. It's the name that has to go. Something about RedEye as a marketing exercise inspires not merely shock and sadness but the urge to do mischief. Reporter Mark Konkol of the Sun-Times's competing Red Streak was inspired to conduct a Web search, then to call LA's Red Eye Press, a long-established enterprise whose flagship title is The Marijuana Grower's Guide. Konkol wondered how the Tribune Company and Red Eye Press had worked out the obvious trademark issues. Well, they hadn't. Until Konkol called, president and publisher James Goodwin hadn't heard of the new "edition" of the Tribune that's billing itself as "Comprehensive -- in a Know-Just-Enough-To-Be-Dangerous kind of way." Goodwin referred Konkol to attorney Darla Anderson, who provided Konkol with a saber-rattling statement that allowed him to write for the November 8 Red Streak the kind of full-blown, in-depth, four-paragraph expos both Reds specialize in. Step one will be a cease-and-desist letter, Anderson told Konkol, step two, if necessary, a lawsuit. This past Monday step one was E-mailed to Tribune Company attorney Michael Parks. "Red Eye Press has used the mark RED EYE PRESS and the stylized RED EYE logo in commerce since 1988," Anderson informed Parks; it registered the mark in 1995 and has owned and used the domain name www.redeyepress.com since 1996. Moreover, its books have been sold across the United States and -- translated into German, Dutch, and Danish -- "throughout the world." Which is why Anderson found it "hard to believe" the Tribune "was unaware of Red Eye Press before adopting the terms Red Eye for its new publication." She covered the grounds for confusion that the Tribune Company had sown. "The public may believe that the Red Eye newspaper is somehow authorized by or affiliated with Red Eye Press." (A misimpression as likely to embarrass the press as the Tribune Company.) "Furthermore, the damage caused to Red Eye Press by the use of this term is compounded by the fact that the Chicago Tribune is using the terms Red Eye on a newspaper directed at consumers 18 to 34 years old." Such consumers "comprise a large percentage of those who purchase Red Eye Press books. These consumers are likely to be familiar with Red Eye Press and again connect it with the Chicago Tribune's new edition." Anderson gave the Tribune Company five days to agree to withdraw its own trademark application for RedEye, drop the name, and pay damages yet to be calculated. "Otherwise my client has directed me to pursue the maximum recovery available to it." Goodwin says he's amazed the Tribune Company did such a sloppy trademark search it didn't discover he was out there. Now that the Tower knows, what will it do? Driven by its famous sense of propriety, the Tribune might take the high road, concede its mistake, and search for a new name with the same edgy, potty quality that it values so highly. There's one available. Before Goodwin launched Red Eye Press he was toying with calling his company Brown Bag Books. If the Tribune renamed its freebie tabloid the Brown Bag or the Brown Rag, the Sun-Times would have to follow suit and shift to the Brown Streak. Which plays right into the Tribune's hands. But don't expect the Tribune to knuckle under. Parks wouldn't call me back, but Tribune spokeswoman Patty Wetli says the trademark search actually "confirmed we have no conflict with Red Eye Press," and therefore the Tribune rejects the claim of trademark infringement. Problems such as the one the Tribune might, despite its assertiveness, now be facing can disappear if you throw some money at them. Red Eye Press wasn't the only Red Eye in the land when the Tribune Company did its trademark search, and it definitely spotted the other one. Based in Boston, Red Eye describes itself as a "nonprofit youth-run political hip hop magazine that seeks to provoke critical thought and provide resources for self empowerment." At one point the people who run it were eager to talk about their Tribune encounter. "The past two months have been extremely demoralizing and draining for us," a founder told me weeks ago, "and there have been moments where we thought we might be losing everything we have worked so hard to build for the past three years." The Red Eye magazine executive board would meet, the founder said, and then there'd be a statement. "We just want to be careful about what we say to the press, in order to ensure accurate representation of a rather tricky situation, and to uphold our end of a contract that we are in the process of signing." Presumably the contract was signed and now they're upholding their end of it. I'm still waiting for a statement. They wouldn't even make a statement that said don't expect a statement -- nobody answered the phone at the Red Eye offices, and nobody returned my phone calls. Finally I cornered the production director at his home. "I'm not authorized to speak," he said over the phone. Who is then? "I'm not authorized to speak," he repeated. Are you still in business? "I'm not authorized to speak." I asked Wetli about dealing with Red Eye magazine. "I think it went fairly amicably," she said. I E-mailed that remark to Red Eye's publisher to see if it would get a rise out of him. I heard back from a lawyer. "Interesting that the Tribune has spoken with the Chicago Reader despite the confidentiality proviso," she remarked. But not so interesting that she said anything else. |
