Actually, it's not entirely the corporations' fault. Instead, blame
London silversmiths of the sixteenth through eighteenth century,
and their influence on the modern law of trademark.
Trademark—unlike copyright—is a "defend it against
all infringers or lose it" variety of intellectual property.
That means that if Mattel wants to protect the mark "Barbie," it
must vigorously assert that the notorious "Barbie Girl"
infringes its trademark. If it doesn't, it could lose the right to
enforce that mark against anyone.
This is not, by the way, a defense of the tactics frequently
used by markholders in defending their marks. They tend to
interpret "vigorous defender" as meaning "assh0le". They tend to
neglect one of the main principles of strategy: proportional
response. They tend to expend every bit of true good will they've
built up over the years in protecting the accountancy fiction of
"goodwill" in brand names (as opposed to the products/services
themselves).
All of that said, as a matter of law Mattel had to lose the "Barbie
Girl" case. Parody and satirization of a mark, and in particular of
the attitudes of both the markholder and consumers of the related
product, is a fair use (analogous to "fair use" in copyright law,
but not really the same thing in detail). However, that it was a
losing battle did not excuse Mattel from taking some
("vigorous") action expressing its disapproval—and, in the
tradition of lawyers everywhere, that means at minimum a
threatening form letter written 25 years ago in a language only
partially resembling English that nobody now dares to change.
Comment statistics for C.E. Petit on the Making Light blog
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by C.E. Petit:
Show all comments by C.E. Petit.