"Got MILF?" T-Shirt Makers Sued By "Got Milk?" Creators

Talk about a serious lack of sense of humor: The dairy producers behind the ubiquitous "Got Milk?" slogan are suing a small T-shirt company that switched a letter and titillated their customers by designing shirts with the slogan, "Got MILF?"

The Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture on behalf of the California Milk Board filed suit against Deez Design, a company based in Alameda Country, California for violating trademark law by changing a "k" to an "f" on their shirts.

(Hat tip to Courthouse News. We'll leave it to readers to sort out what the MILF acronym stands for...)

The California Milk Processor Board now wants Deez Design to halt making the line of shirts. In the complaint, the California milk authorities allege: "This use of a confusingly similar variation of the 'got milk?' Marks constitutes trademark infringement and causes likelihood of confusion, deception and mistake."

The "Got MILF?" t-shirt uses the same font as the "got milk" tagline, which, according to the plaintiffs, "has been named the most culturally influential tagline since the advent of broadcast television." The complaint adds that the "got milf?" t-shirt "has caused the dilution of the distinctive quality of the 'got milk?' marks."

READ the complaint:

GotMilf -

Comments

[milk this]

Seen it before:
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/12/dairy_lawyers_t_1.php

Peta response:
http://blog.peta.org/archives/D._Donahue-J._Lemmon_response.pdf

Although the cases are a little different guess what...Peta is STILL selling the shirts because they luckily had the resources to defend themselves:

http://www.cafepress.com/petastore/1650673

Most reasonable people would not confuse the two shirts or think they are the same thing. Our court system is already filled to the brim due to crap lawsuits like this. Honestly who cares and when all is said and done how does this "really" "diminish" the trademark? What's hurt but their "feelings"?

Another issue. Why is a state government agency is getting involved on the side of a for profit business group? Smells fishy or like cow poo!

[loki]

If the California Department of Food and Ag does win, then they will be coming after thousands of others using the phrase. Schools have posters up saying " Got Education" , and so on.
They are only singling this one out because some bible thumper in the CDFA was offended by it. If not , then they would have been filing suits for the last 10 years in all sectors or life. Everyone has been using a knock off of the Got Milk ad. These people were singled out because someone didnt like it. Thats all.

[loki]

can trademark copyright something in common domain. How many decades have normal people been asking " Got milk"? This is like the comedian copyrighting "Get R done".. If its a commonly used saying or phrase, I am pretty sure you can legally get away with claiming its your own and no one else can use it. If you can, then I think we would see a whole plethora of copyrighted sayings and law suits.

[TJCole]

A friend of mine owns: got peace?

He trademarked it...

[Ameriki]

("has been named the most culturally influential tagline since the advent of broadcast television.")

Where's the beef?

[dmsdzinr]

YOU cannot claim that the usage of a FONT is theirs alone. Unless the FONT was a proprietary font
(designed exclusively for a client) that someone copies. I believe this is a LOSER for the Milk group.

[JohnStuartMill]

There is no such thing as a proprietary font. The court system has ruled that letterforms are not protected by copyright, trademark, or patent.

[EinChicago]

Not to mention the font is irrelevant. It's registered as a word mark with the USPTO, so the font is not taken into account.

[cwindy2]

I want one!!! Bet their going to lose in court, though.

[meemu]

Good! and I hope they WIN. That's a disgusting acronym anyway, and show a lack of respect for women anyhow. I don't ever want to see it on a shirt!!

[JessWonderin]

Great . . . it disgusts YOU so BAN it . . . . . wanna join me in getting a suit against the "Got Jesus?" tee-shirt makers???

[kejia]

Great publicity for the tee-shirt company.

[GerryS]

change the font, they got nothing after that---------

[EinChicago]

Ummm. No. Check out teh mark at TESS. It's a word mark. The font is irrelevant because it was registered as a word mark and thus the slogan is the mark, not the design.


Try again.

[loki]

So someone would trademark any word, and then sue everyone and anyone for using it? No matter what the context? I cant buy that.

[leduck]

that's hilarious
would love to have on of those shirts

[loki]

Its just plain text. You could get iron on letters and do it yourself.

[jimmyjones22]

They will lose. it's fair use because it is a part of our culture, and making jokes about our collective culture has already been deemed fair use in several court cases.

[EinChicago]

Ummmm. Not even close to being vaguely related to the truth. You need to reread the case law and get a basic understanding of teh fair use doctrine and its elements. This is nowhere near fair use. It's classic trademark dilution. It's commercial in nature, associates the original mark with unsavory/illicit meaning, usues 99% of the protected mark, etc. This fails virtually every single prong of the fair use test.

It's a slam dunk for the milk people.

[jimmyjones22]

Fair use cases are hardly slam dunk cases simply because there are no exact rules for the cases - it's almost exclusively on a case by case basis.

Anyways, if what you were saying is true, and shirt mocking up any logo could be sued.

And think about this: the same argument I've used, people have used to remix music and win. Same concept. So unless you are a lawyer, which i doubt, try bringing some facts to the discussion.

[jimmyjones22]

Anyways, will be following this case so I can come back here in a few months to say eat it.

[sonoffestus]

We're dealing with to different milk products here. What the problem?

[leduck]

i agree

[loki]

Budwieser use to be famous for these types of law suits. From a Florist who had an ad that said "this buds for you' with a picture of a rose, the a bar that had "This Mugs for you" on their beer mugs , AB use to sue them all. Anyone and everyone. The ones who were small and scared would cave in. Just about all the others beat it in court.

[Fabini]

"Got ____" has become ubiquitous and is no longer protected. Sorry CMPB. Got Lawyers?

[davewill]

Satire. The Milk Board might as well toss in the towel, now. They won't win this one.

[leduck]

they shouldn't
but you never know

[EinChicago]

Uh? I'm guessing you have zero legal education/ orexperience. How is this a non-commercial fair use? Satire doesn't work as a defense if it is commercial. These guys are selling T-Shirts. It's 100% on the nose trademark infringement. It would be pretty much impossible for the Got Milk folks to lose.

[jimmyjones22]

See: Wierd Al

[loki]

could they just sell the letters and the tshirt and you iron them on yourself?
But I agree that the only way they will win is if they own the judge. They wont win the appeals. LIke Jimmy Jones22 says, See Weird Al just for one of thousands of examples.
How about the recent South Butt case filed by North Face. You think that has a chance ?

[Humanistic]

It is non-commercial fair use because they're not using the altered slogan to sell a product directly. It's only used as a parody for fun, and that's the only market value for their product (T-shirts). You can't claim infringement of a slogan that no longer has the same meaning and is not used to sell another product through its advertising value...as opposed to selling T-shirts because people have fun flaunting "proper" social mores.

[EinChicago]

Bzzzzzt. Worng. Try again. Satire is not protected by the fair use docrine. Parody is. Satire is not and never has been.