You wouldn't think that anyone in the market for a
$3,000 handheld camera capable of shooting 3K HD at 100MB/s would somehow get confused enough to end up with a
mediocre LG plasma TV, but it seems like the folks at RED are worried -- the company's lawyers are preparing an opposition to LG's filing for the "Scarlet" trademark, and they've filed for their own mark. It looks like RED is getting pretty serious about protecting its marks -- president Jim Jannard is politely asking RED fans to include a trademark disclaimer when they post about the company's products, and he says that the proceedings against LG are "just the tip of the iceberg." Honestly, we think RED's going to have a tough time selling a judge on the likelihood of confusion between a consumer-oriented HDTV and a decidedly pro-grade camera, but we've been surprised in the past -- we'll see how this one plays out.
Read - Jim Jannard forum post
Read - Request for extension of time to file opposition
posted Aug 18th 2008 at 2:04PM
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Anthony @ Aug 18th 2008 2:09PM
RED, Magenta. It's all the same: A bunch of BS.
Blaine Oliver @ Aug 18th 2008 2:19PM
If the boxing gloves were red, i think that picture would be far more win. Since when is SCARLET the same as RED? And who thats looking for a tv will mistakenly spend $3000 on a camera.
Dirkus @ Aug 18th 2008 2:24PM
Actually, RED's smaller pro camcorder (the one shown in the picture above) is called "Scarlet", it's not just a lawsuit over a roughly similar color name, it's the EXACT SAME NAME.
And it's not 3000 colors, guys, it's 3K HD, as in 3072x1728 image size.
The more you know... [tm]
Dirkus @ Aug 18th 2008 2:32PM
My bad, I should provide linkage, huh?
"Scarlet" camera - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company#Scarlet
HD Formats - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company#Recording_formats
Mark @ Aug 18th 2008 3:02PM
OH MY GAWD
Some product has the exact same name. If I ever met someone that had the same name as me I better sue them because it's fraud.
Wait, that's not how corporatism works?
Bryan @ Aug 18th 2008 6:32PM
My Crayola box says otherwise.
Dirkus @ Aug 18th 2008 4:12PM
I'm not saying their suit has merit, I'm just trying to point out that it's not quite as ridiculous as say, T-Mobile's suits against anyone what uses the color magenta in their logo.
It seemed from the first few comments on here that everyone was initially in shock and awe because they thought RED was suing over a red-like color. It's not, it's suing for trademark infringement because an HD display is using the same name as RED's HD camcorder.
Honestly though, I'd be interested in seeing PRODUCT (RED) suing RED for trademark infringement.
billy bob thorton @ Aug 18th 2008 9:29PM
@Nilay
$3,000??? get your facts straight man. You might want to add another zero to that figure are you would get close to what a RED actually costs when the dust clears
Aguiluz @ Aug 18th 2008 2:10PM
Oh goodness... IT'S JUST THE COLOR! Do they have to "protect" things to overkill ranges?
Also, consumers can distinguish between a red camera and a red HDTV.
And I wonder why they call the camera red, because it is colored black....
Mikey @ Aug 18th 2008 4:24PM
No, it's the NAME... as people have indicated above, one of RED's models is called "Scarlet." So the names are identical. There certainly are arguments that the products are different (camera vs. TV), and that the markets are different, but it isn't just protecting the color (although you certainly can trademark a color as well, if the consuming public associates the color with your brand).
Simon P @ Aug 18th 2008 2:13PM
Hmmmm, what about this whole Bono/HIV charity stuff. They have any say in this?
Eric @ Aug 18th 2008 2:29PM
I'm wearing a (RED) shirt... I managed not to think it was a TV or a camera, but they always told me I was "above average."
John @ Aug 18th 2008 2:14PM
Samsung has Touch of Color: Red for their high end TVs. I think it's time for the color lawsuit to end them all. We need to have one company owning the color red and all derivations, from 010000 to FFFFFF.
bob sakamano @ Aug 18th 2008 2:17PM
dorkiest. comment. ever.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 18th 2008 7:49PM
FFFFFF is not red.
Juxtah @ Aug 18th 2008 2:16PM
Do they really consider the consumer to be so stupid to mistake a $3000 camera with a decidedly cheaper LCD TV?
d @ Aug 18th 2008 2:20PM
yes.
Andy S. @ Aug 18th 2008 2:17PM
Seriously? I'd have thought that Product(RED) would pose a greater threat to the RED trademark. Crimson, though? I just don't see it.
Ken @ Aug 18th 2008 3:35PM
I'd like to see RED try to sue a charity for trademark infringement.
ScOObyDoo @ Aug 18th 2008 2:18PM
Red is the new Monster.
Dee @ Aug 18th 2008 2:40PM
no RED is the new Black.
ehisforadam @ Aug 18th 2008 2:21PM
Red is apparently the new T-Mobile magenta.
Dan @ Aug 18th 2008 2:24PM
All I know is I was shopping for a high end camera one day and ended up hanging out with Bono working to help AIDS victims. Man was my face was red (which was promptly sold to a guy looking for a TV).
It's easy to get these things mixed up.
B @ Aug 18th 2008 2:24PM
RED is probably planning to come out with their own line of monitors featuring super high colors/pixels/price and want to preemptively stake a claim in the display space.
Crayola @ Aug 18th 2008 2:28PM
Not exactly Apple Corp Vs Apple Computers... To do rather biased, RED don't even make decent 4K digital cinema camera to get the kind of recognition Apple was accorded.
The Pepto Pimp @ Aug 18th 2008 3:06PM
What? What?
First of all, what were you trying to say?
Secondly, the RED One is more than a decent 4K digi-cinema acquisition device. To suggest otherwise it just dumb. Even if you're trying to be funny, you're not. Just. Dumb.
Phour ZwanZig @ Aug 18th 2008 11:33PM
do you mean
Apple Computers -vs- Apple Records.. ???
But that wasnt so much a word, but the use of the apple logo I believe..
Lowest Ranked @ Aug 18th 2008 2:28PM
"You wouldn't think think..."
Stem $ell @ Aug 18th 2008 2:30PM
In related news, Nathaniel Hawthorne is [posthumously] suing the pants off RED...
farfisa @ Aug 18th 2008 2:30PM
Next, they're taking on Gone With the Wind!
a ham sandwich @ Aug 18th 2008 2:33PM
i would say itd be pretty hard to protect a color as a trademark. o wait...
Rand @ Aug 18th 2008 2:37PM
Such is the nature of trademark protection. In order to retain their trademark RED has to show they have defended it. So yes today it seems stupid that they are getting all upset over an HDTV with the name "Scarlet" but in the future if a cheap ass video camera hits the market with the name "Scarlet" then RED stands to lose in court if they challenge the other video camera's branding because they haven't vigorously defended their trademark. Not saying its right or wrong, thats just the way it is.
Wolfticket @ Aug 18th 2008 2:39PM
Top tip: If you want a unique and recognisable company/product name that you can protect in court without being laughed at/hated don't use the name of a colour... you idiots.
primetime4 @ Aug 18th 2008 2:41PM
I thought that standard terms or descriptions could not be trademarked which is why we have "Blu-ray".
a ham sandwich @ Aug 18th 2008 2:44PM
lol. yeah about that...
Jimmy Hoffa @ Aug 18th 2008 3:13PM
Not quite.
IANAL, but as I understand it, standard terms can be (and often are) trademarked within a specific context in which it is not already generally used, e.g., 'apple' in reference to computers, 'scarlet' for a line of TVs, or 'vista' for an operating system. If the term is already generally used in that context you probably won't be able to trademark it, or at least you'll have a hell of a time protecting your trademark. E.g., trying to trademark 'toilet paper' for a brand of toilet paper, trying to trademark 'laptop' for a portable computer, or trying to trademark 'blue-ray' for blue-ray optical discs. This is why Adobe, even though it has obvious promotional value, publicly disapproves of any use of the term 'photoshop' as a verb—they don't want to go the way of band-aid, aspirin, escalator, crock pot, etc.
Mikey @ Aug 18th 2008 4:30PM
@primetime4
That's only if the "common term" you are using is a common descriptor of the product you are selling. There is nothing about the term "Red" or "Scarlett" that would lead you to believe it is referring to a camera or TV. These are considered "arbitrary" marks which are highly protectable, because it is unlikely that the term in question would be used generically or merely descriptively in reference to that product. As already pointed out, "Apple" for a computer was similarly protectable, because an Apple is a piece of fruit, not a piece of hardware.
Allan Tooley @ Aug 18th 2008 2:43PM
Well, you said in the post that the TV is mediocre. While no reasonable person would confuse a camera with a TV, doesn't it make sense that RED is worried that reasonable people would confusedly think that the two were part of a product line? And that, seeing the mediocre quality of the TV they just bought, decide not to drop cash on what they might assume is a mediocre video camera?
Brian @ Aug 18th 2008 2:52PM
Engadget: You forgot to include THE very important detail... that RED is releasing a camera by that name.
spooky2k @ Aug 18th 2008 3:13PM
IN the end this won't matter anyway. As a filming media, these cameras are flawed. They won't be being adopted as standard anytime soon in the UK. The tech just isn't good enough (the HD res is great, but the fact that browns show up as blues, and that you need ten times more light than a regular camera means they're not practical!..don't even get me started on the fact they make you hire their own techs to run the damn things!).
required @ Aug 18th 2008 3:54PM
So the quality is big and bad (huge resolution & crappy quality). That is what I gathered from, oddly enough, their industrial design.
jason @ Aug 18th 2008 4:04PM
What? Their own techs to run the things. Shenenegans! Has anyone reading this post even seen a One in person? A production / post house I used to work at has one and its a great camera, flawed yes, but still great. And in no way shape or form did they have to hire anyone to run it. That's ridiculous. If you own it you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
davec @ Aug 18th 2008 5:25PM
Some serious disinformation here - do you have any idea what your talking about? 10 times the amount of light as a "regular" camera - really, is that right? The camera is natively a 320 ASA camera and can be used up to 1000 ASA without too much noise appearing. Browns come out as blue?? Maybe if you're colour blind. And you don't have to "hire" a "Red tech" to come out with the camera - a lot of owners go out with their cameras as Digital Imaging Technicians but it's not compulsory for every camera. Where on earth do you get your disinformation from...is it some form of chinese whispers?
why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 18th 2008 7:58PM
I like Jim Jannard. He was a whiz with Oakley marketing, and he's doing a great job with RED marketing.
But anyone could grab a CMOS sensor from a DSLR and make a crummy camera from it.
That's right. I said crummy.
http://ieba.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/red-rolling-shutter-redux/
http://www.redhax.net/wiki/Understanding_Rolling_Shutter_Artifacts
Great marketing Jim, but you need to catch up on the tech. When you shoot 3000 frames in a film, having it work in 99% of all situations still means you got 30 wrong.
Jason @ Aug 18th 2008 5:19PM
I so called this months ago when Engadget posted something about the TV.. I said something like: The only Scarlet I know is from RED...
phoomp @ Aug 18th 2008 3:03PM
Dear Engadget,
Please remove the Blue boxing gloves from your website. I've just purchased the rights to the colour blue.
Seamouse @ Aug 18th 2008 3:11PM
Dear phoomp,
Please remove the letter "u" from the word "colour." It's scarring my American eyes.
LondonConsultant @ Aug 18th 2008 5:53PM
Doble doble toil and troble
Matthew @ Aug 18th 2008 3:09PM
Did anybody read the post?
This trademark dispute is perfectly logical from the standpoint of RED. They are trying to prevent any form of confusion that their high end cameras are in any way linked to the HDTV series made by LG. the name in dispute is "Scarlet" not RED, Red, or the color red. I think it is safe to assume that RED is fully aware that nobody would mistake a HDTV for a diminuitive sized camera, the problem is that people might think that the LG television is either A. equally as high end as RED's products, then upon buying it discovering that it is not thus hurting the image of RED. or B. thinking that RED has in some way liscenced their brand to LG in which they have a made a television that is designed to be used with the RED camera series.
This is in no way similar to the T-Mobile rediculousness about the color magenta, which was absolutely moronic. RED and LG are considered to be in the same "class of goods" which is why RED has every right to dispute the product name as their own trademark. now the real question is who trademarked the name "Scarlet" first? RED certainly released their product first but the law is the law. Someone is gonna have to change thier name.
required @ Aug 18th 2008 3:49PM
RED is going to be (scarlet) red in the face & LG will LauGh. Reminds me of this plumber in the hood called Apple and this carpet cleaner named McDonalds.