'Lord of the Fries' a winner?
7 March
2025-3-7 8:41:48 AM UTC
2025-3-7 8:41:48 AM UTC
I hope I have got this right - but in this case MEE did not succeed in protecting its "supposed" trademark?
Given the fact that "Lord of the X" is quite possibly a snowclone this defeat may be interesting for future trademark disputes.
‘You Shall Not Pass’: ‘Lord of the Fries’ Trademark Dispute Has a Winner
Given the fact that "Lord of the X" is quite possibly a snowclone this defeat may be interesting for future trademark disputes.
‘You Shall Not Pass’: ‘Lord of the Fries’ Trademark Dispute Has a Winner
I think the Australian courts made the correct decision here, and also that this will not materially affect Middle-earth Enterprises going after other businesses that MeE thinks are violating their trademarks.
The only congruence between the restaurant and MeE is the use of the words "Lord of the", which as the court points out, is fairly common. Lord of the Flies, Lord of the Dance, etc. The restaurant does not have any branding that relates to Tolkien or Middle-earth.
As a counterpoint, the garbage company "Lord of the Bins" did lose in court and had to change it's name. As you can see, they purposely played up the font and phrasing from the Lord of the Rings movies, making it pretty obvious they were trying to gain value from using MeE's trademarks (as sub-licensed to New Line/WB).
The only congruence between the restaurant and MeE is the use of the words "Lord of the", which as the court points out, is fairly common. Lord of the Flies, Lord of the Dance, etc. The restaurant does not have any branding that relates to Tolkien or Middle-earth.
As a counterpoint, the garbage company "Lord of the Bins" did lose in court and had to change it's name. As you can see, they purposely played up the font and phrasing from the Lord of the Rings movies, making it pretty obvious they were trying to gain value from using MeE's trademarks (as sub-licensed to New Line/WB).
100
12.06K