What's new

"Goldmember" GONE as title for Austin Powers 3! (1 Viewer)

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
I hope they don't miss the chance to turn this around on MGM for being so petty.
trademark law is a tricky subject. if a trademark owner fails to act to protect a mark, that mark can be considered abandoned. given the lucrative nature of the Bond franchise, that is not an option for Danjaq/MGM. petty? not when there's millions of dollars on the line.

DJ
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,140
Real Name
Malcolm
if a trademark owner fails to act to protect a mark, that mark can be considered abandoned.
So "The Spy Who Loved Me" is lost for all time at a cost to MGM of millions of dollars? They didn't go all out to protect that title from becoming "The Spy Who Shagged Me."

I do think it's pettiness because as I understand it, it was a mere procedural/paperwork error that caused the "Goldmember" title to be denied by MPAA. If MGM had any sense of humor, they'd have let New Line use it anyway since the only reason they can't is because they screwed up the registration procedures, not because MGM really had any power to block it in the first place.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Parody is protected in trademark battles as I understand it.

ALL reports clearly indicate that this has ONLY BEEN an MPAA decision, a group that studios agree to follow but have no legal obligation to do so. The reason for abiding the ruling is that to counter the MPAA would be to bring on all sorts of future problems in the film world.

New Line simply did not get things squared away with the MPAA in proper time and got burned for it. That's all.

There is/was no legal action involved here as the MPAA is not a legal institute. Trademark law was NOT invoked in this situation at all.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
Debbie Does Dallas said:
trademark issues don't need to be actually litigated in order for them to be affected. actions that take place in arbitration can be considered in future trademark litigation (e.g., if a future defendant claims that Danjaq/MGM has abandoned the trademark in question). by protecting themselves in MPAA arbitration, MGM also helps to protect themselves for future trademark usage.
DJ
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
But MGM never indicated an intent to go to court, filing properly with the MPAA IS an established system, and abiding by their ruling volentarily is also part of that system, just as adhearing to their film ratings is.

The question still stands, other than filing with the MPAA correctly for Spy Who Shagged but not for Goldmember, what else changed between these 2 cases that suddenly means New Line was about to be ripped apart in court by MGM or that MGM would even think about spending the money in court on such a risky venture, especially now that they have followed with a downward estimate for the first quarter thank to horrible losses with Hart's War and Rollerball.

To me it seems much more likely that MGM simply took advantage of a technicality and were in no "strong" position to shut New Line down otherwise.

Parody is mentioned because it is very winnable and obviously the defense they would take. Far from being a straight trademark infringement battle where New Line would get killed. It's not being invoked as some golden shield, but simply as the standard defense that would result in a serious battle at best for MGM rather than the cakewalk that the MPAA screw-up by New Line afforded them.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
The question still stands, other than filing with the MPAA correctly for Spy Who Shagged but not for Goldmember, what else changed between these 2 cases
Still stands. I think it's very revealing of MGMs stand on the whole sitution. How is AP2 not infringement and not something they thought was worth stopping, but AP3 suddenly was. And that they chose to bring it up AFTER NL had missed a deadline to file with the MPAA but not before??

Two good reasons to wait until such a point is because it gives you either the best chance to win or the best chance to screw the other side (by waiting till they would really be in a tough spot to adjust things).

One says a weak case, the other says petty. At least to me. I can't really see any other reason for waiting so long if you were really bothered by the idea and felt strong in whatever legal actions you might have to take.

You can't use the "MGM wasn't aware defense" since everyone knew of Goldmember quite some time ago and well before MGM brought it up to the MPAA.

The fact that they didn't try to fight AP2 combined with their timing in objecting to AP3 seem VERY strange. Even a change of heart in protecting the franchise doesn't cover why they waited so long to stop AP3, and a suddenly realization that Goldmember bad but Spy Who Shagged Me acceptable is suspect as well.

Besides, doesn't the precedent of allowing NL to use Spy Who Shagged Me hurt their case in stopping Goldmember? It shows an inconsistent behavior in a span of just a few years regarding trademark protection, specifically with 2 items that are very identical.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
Besides, doesn't the precedent of allowing NL to use Spy Who Shagged Me hurt their case in stopping Goldmember? It shows an inconsistent behavior in a span of just a few years regarding trademark protection, specifically with 2 items that are very identical.
so, in order words, you agree with the point that, in order to protect their trademark, MGM should take action against possible infringers lest they find themselves to have abandoned it.

DJ
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
A) it wasn't stopped. I remember no news about any legal proceedings either. However, you have pointed out that NL would have been in a tough spot if MGM had tried to stop them.

Are you saying they did and lost???

B) I never said they shouldn't try to protect their trademarks. I said that I agree the METHOD USED for AP3 looks either PETTY or that they thought that NL's mistake with the MPAA filing was their only shot to stop it.

You still haven't explained the reason for such a late start in stopping NL from going forward that would differ from either of the 2 theories I have stated.

MGM new many months at least that Goldmember was in the works, yet they took no action till after trailers had been running at theaters and the project was almost finished. Then suddenly they stood up and said "hold on, we don't approve of this".

Reports seem to indicate that had New Line been notified before a certain deadline they would have still had time to file correctly with the MPAA and not have been stopped by this method. But why would MGM worry about relying on that if they knew they could win at any time? Why not stop a Goldmember infringement before TRAILERS were shown publically for weeks? Certainly that had to be "infringing" just as much as the film, yet they did not ask for them to be stopped until after a critical MPAA deadline...after weeks of the trailers being run in front of a $300m blockbuster film.

Maybe the reports I've read are wrong, but if those are the basic correct facts, then it seems like skullduggery to me more than honest "we just want to protect our interests".
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,140
Real Name
Malcolm
Here's some info re: "The Spy Who Shagged Me"
".....New Line added that "the issue currently in dispute does not pertain to the title or content of the film. Indeed, in 1997, New Line's use of the title The Spy Who Shagged Me was cleared by the MPAA. Thursday's hearing was solely about a procedural infraction, and nothing more, between New Line and the MPAA, which we are in the process of resolving privately. We find it unproductive and will not tolerate any deliberate attempts to manipulate the facts in the press to further aggravate this matter."
In case anyone missed the joke, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me echoes the title of the 1977 Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me.
Despite using titles such as Octopussy, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, its United Artists unit, and Danjaq have always been notoriously humor-impaired when it comes to the Bond franchise: They have been known to sic hard-hitting Hollywood litigator Pierce O'Donnell on auto companies that had the temerity to use a well-dressed spy as the subject of a TV ad.
Similarly, MGM and UA would have loved to put a stop to the use of the phrase "The Spy Who Shagged Me," but when they registered a protest with the MPAA in 1997, New Line countered the suit and won. This time, New Line apparently failed to go through the proper channels in its counter and, for now at least, does not have the right to use the Goldmember title.
Given MGM's attitude toward its sacred Bond cow, it's hard to believe that the studio would see fit to abandon its advantage at this point. New Line could conceivably fight the ruling under fair use in copyright law.
Rappers 2 Live Crew, for example, took a suit surrounding their use of the Roy Orbison song "Pretty Woman" all the way to the Supreme Court, which then reached the explicit conclusion that a parody falls within the scope of the fair-use defense. It would, however, be impossible to market the film as Goldmember during that process." -- from Variety
AND
"....As a legal matter, New Line could easily defend its use of ''Goldmember'' as a parody protected under the ``fair use'' doctrine of copyright law, as the rap group 2 Live Crew successfully did in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a parody of the Roy Orbison song ``Pretty Woman,'' legal experts said.
The ``Goldmember'' flap is not the first between MGM and New Line over Austin Powers titles. MGM initially challenged the use of ``The Spy Who Shagged Me,'' an obvious play on the 1977 Bond title ``The Spy Who Loved Me.'' But that dispute was settled when New Line agreed to include trailer play for MGM movies on its Austin Powers sequel." -- from Variety
So these articles seem to agree that:
1. The loss of "Goldmember" is due to NL dropping the ball, not MGM's great interest in protecting their trademarks.
2. MGM is notoriously "humor-impaired."
3. NL could likely win under "fair use" doctrine if they wanted to take the issue to court.
4. MGM will settle if they can have their trailers attached to a big, blockbuster movie or, in this case, as rumor had it, if NL had not opened "John Q" vs. "Hart's War". I guess we all know how that came out for MGM. :rolleyes
 

GlennH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 28, 1998
Messages
2,155
Real Name
Glenn
i don't blame MGM much for being humorless when the Bond franchise is one of their prized possessions
Except that being humorless in such a case really does nothing to help MGM and only tarnishes their image in the eyes of the public. Explain to me how the AP parodies of Bond movie cliches are harmful to MGM or the Bond franchise. I see the opposite being true. I look at them as a comedic tribute that actually increases my awareness of and desire to watch the originals.
 

John Berggren

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 1999
Messages
3,237
From Coming Attractions:
April 5, 2002... The FilmStew website reports that a well-placed little birdie they know says New Line has selected the title for Austin Powers 3 as --drum roll, please-- "Never Say Member Again". Naturally, New Line denies it, and the producer's office refers calls back to (where else?) New Line publicity. [Scooped by Clay Johanson; originally appeared at FilmStew.]
I like it!
Never Say Member Again
 

Jason Harbaugh

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,968
Don't you think that MGM might also be a little jealous that AP2 made more money, domestic, than any Bond film?
I like that Never Say Member Again title too. :D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,701
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top