32 (ridiculous) Taylor Swift "suspected" intellectual property violations
Woke up this morning to find 32 suspected intellectual property violations on our account, all apparently relating to the trademark "Swiftie" (which is a trademark owned by Taylor Swift).
Not a single one of these products (all novelty ceramic mugs) has any mention of the trademarked term ANYWHERE on the product or in the listing (including keywords etc.). Furthermore, none of these mugs even remotely relate to Taylor Swift or her brand which is clearly obvious from looking at them.
Many of the mugs do include the word "Taylor" and some contain a variation of the word (such as "Taylr", "Tayler" etc.) since we create mugs that refer to names of cities like "Taylor Falls" or mugs with first names and surnames on them. However, not a single one of these mugs has the word "Swift" or "Swiftie" in them and it is painfully obvious that they do not violate any intellectual property rights. As far as I can tell, Amazon's currently policy must be that Taylor Swift entirely owns and has exclusive rights to the name "Taylor" now which is completely absurd. This would mean that anyone named "Taylor", "Tayler", "Taylr" etc. who wanted to go to Amazon to buy a mug with their name on it or a person who wanted to buy a mug with their hometown on it (like "Taylor Falls") would have to buy a Taylor Swift mug (or nothing at all) which is absolutely insane and an unfair restriction on freedom of commerce.
Now I get to spend the whole day trying to deal with a problem that was created entirely by Amazon so that our selling account doesn't get suspended. Off to a great start as I sat on hold for more than 40 minutes waiting to speak to someone from the account health team (the recording said it was a less than 30 mins wait), only to have Amazon eventually disconnect the call on their end (which has happened so many times over the last couple years that it's not even funny).
To say that I am disappointed, disheartened and frustrated with the way Amazon treats smaller sellers like us would be a giant understatement...
32 (ridiculous) Taylor Swift "suspected" intellectual property violations
Woke up this morning to find 32 suspected intellectual property violations on our account, all apparently relating to the trademark "Swiftie" (which is a trademark owned by Taylor Swift).
Not a single one of these products (all novelty ceramic mugs) has any mention of the trademarked term ANYWHERE on the product or in the listing (including keywords etc.). Furthermore, none of these mugs even remotely relate to Taylor Swift or her brand which is clearly obvious from looking at them.
Many of the mugs do include the word "Taylor" and some contain a variation of the word (such as "Taylr", "Tayler" etc.) since we create mugs that refer to names of cities like "Taylor Falls" or mugs with first names and surnames on them. However, not a single one of these mugs has the word "Swift" or "Swiftie" in them and it is painfully obvious that they do not violate any intellectual property rights. As far as I can tell, Amazon's currently policy must be that Taylor Swift entirely owns and has exclusive rights to the name "Taylor" now which is completely absurd. This would mean that anyone named "Taylor", "Tayler", "Taylr" etc. who wanted to go to Amazon to buy a mug with their name on it or a person who wanted to buy a mug with their hometown on it (like "Taylor Falls") would have to buy a Taylor Swift mug (or nothing at all) which is absolutely insane and an unfair restriction on freedom of commerce.
Now I get to spend the whole day trying to deal with a problem that was created entirely by Amazon so that our selling account doesn't get suspended. Off to a great start as I sat on hold for more than 40 minutes waiting to speak to someone from the account health team (the recording said it was a less than 30 mins wait), only to have Amazon eventually disconnect the call on their end (which has happened so many times over the last couple years that it's not even funny).
To say that I am disappointed, disheartened and frustrated with the way Amazon treats smaller sellers like us would be a giant understatement...
31 respuestas
Seller_LVZcgxAgZ2xBv
This one takes the cake. Whoever or whatever accepted the report filed by the TM holder in Brand Registry made a major error.
The Account Health team must be swamped with these types of false positives on Brand Registry ... and increasingly the forum moderators here when sellers can't get answers. Hope someone will spot this and intervene.
Seller_f4a7xAPCCSMqD
Is it possibly used as a keyword?
Seller_rI7BZIczK8iAC
Maybe THAT is the issue and not "Taylor Swift". You can't just use names of cities like "New York" or "San Fransisco" without an official paper from that towns allowing you to use the name.
Seller_BQ0Hb9q8n3EEL
Thanks for your input but that is 100% incorrect. I am actually a lawyer by training and have a pretty solid understanding of intellectual property rights.
I can't post any non Amazon links here but just google "are city names trademarked" and you will see that they are clearly not.
Seller_BQ0Hb9q8n3EEL
Also, the "Reason" column on the account health page reads "Trademark misuse(SWIFTIE)" for every single one of the suspected violations so it has nothing to do with city names or anything else.
Seller_rI7BZIczK8iAC
They are NOT trademarked, but not allowed to use for commercial interests.
Seller_BQ0Hb9q8n3EEL
I appreciate your further input, but that is incorrect also. City names are in the public domain and can be freely used on commercial products. Again. I can't post non-Amazon links here but if you google it, you will see answers from lawyers such as this one:
"[City names] are common geographical terms and thus public domain. Just steer clear of anyone else's brand names, artwork, logos, special typestyle or slogans and you should be fine. For example "Florida" or "Florida beaches" or "St. Pete Beach" is okay, "Florida Marlins" or "Florida Gators" is likely not okay. "California" "California beaches" or "Redondo Beach, CA" or "California redwoods" is okay, but "California Golden Bears" or "California Dreamin'" is likely not."
Also, as I have already stated above, this is clearly not the reason that these products have been flagged by Amazon so this discussion is not relevant to the thread.
Seller_rI7BZIczK8iAC
Thank you for the clarification.
Seller_BZ76vtjeD9IKi
Who told you that nonsense?
Seller_zc50DVO3FE5fz
Are you just making this up because you think it's right? You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Instead of stating something as if it's a fact, as least you could list a source or attempt to list a source so you can see that you're wrong prior to posting.
Seller_rI7BZIczK8iAC
Certainly that doesn't apply to all cities, a research before using would be of legal safety. @Seller_BZ76vtjeD9IKi
Seller_BQ0Hb9q8n3EEL
Good news. After appealing the violations in writing yesterday, all 32 of them have been removed from our account as of this morning.
Atlas_Amazon
Hello @Seller_BQ0Hb9q8n3EEL
Thank you for information provided regarding the concern with your listings. I understand that your listings include "Taylor" but makes no reference to "Swiftie". It may be the relation to the trademark that has caused your violation, so we would recommend providing disputing evidence to show there is no association between the two.
You mention having got the violations resolved after appealing, we do appreciate you confirming this for us. We encourage you to refer to this thread for any future questions that you might have on this particular concern.
Best,
Atlas
Seller_MCDVApNEgDiwa
Seller_9HJtqF9QqkZnU
[Moderator Edit: removed inappropriate commentary]
Seller_4HsL3GZbyDLea
Wow..
Another day, another Amazon induced nightmare.
