tl;dr Crowder is threatening to sue CNN, Jubilee and Talarico for using the phrase “change my mind”, which he argues is “our trademarked brand, logo and format”.
I find it hard to believe that he owns or can own that trademark personally.
change my mind
Sadly, he does seem to have gotten it trademarked. That LLC owns a “Mug Club” which I presume is Crowder’s.
How this was trademarked, I have no idea, but if it’s used satirically (as in thrown back in his face) I don’t see how a lawsuit prevails - generally this is only merited if CNN started using it directly for a personality on their network or a show name, etc.
Yeah, good luck with that DV MAGA moron.
What a little bitch.
Looked it up. He does indeed have a trademark for “Change my mind”.
No doubt it has already been genericized. The court ruling anything other than that would be surprising. Pretty much anything that becomes hyper memed gets this treatment.
I looked it up as well, already has a Section 8 and 15 declaration and no clear limitation based on the prosecution history. Which is kind of crazy since “change my mind” in a debate context and using trademark terminology is at least suggestive, but much more rightly descriptive (which should not be registrable without pre-establishing secondary meaning).
Even if he has a registration, using it within the debate itself and if the debate was not called “Change My Mind” means there’s no real chance of Crowder winning. He’s just doing #rightwingthings, using lawfare to try to hurt opponents when they can’t win with arguments and moral high ground.
I’m not a lawyer, but that seems pretty unenforceable from my limited experience with trademark law. Common phrases, especially used casually (as in, not in an advertisement/campaign slogan), can’t really be infringed as far as I know.
Now, if he had put it on a billboard or something, that’s a slightly different story.
Prove me wrong, lol
In the end I agree, it can’t be enforced, but if it helps:
Trademark protects source indicators, for specific goods and services, so a phrase isn’t simply trademarkable or not on its own, it depends on what it is relating to.
There’s different levels of protectibility as well - but “generic” is a higher bar. If something is just “descriptive” then it’s really just describing the goods or services. Those can’t be trademarked unless there is “secondary meaning” which is established consumer association with using that phrase for a good or service. There’s also “suggestive” marks, which are less direct than descriptive, “arbitrary” marks which are words applied to unlike goods and services, and “fanciful” (edit: correction) marks which are totally made up words. All that goes in order of protectibility.
Basically, Crowder shouldn’t (IMHO) have gotten this mark for debate products/services, because it’s descriptive to what debate is. Somehow he did without the USPTO fighting back. Maybe USPTO was overworked and it slipped by.
Ultimately, though, an infringement would only succeed if another party used it in a way that caused confusion over the source/endorsement. Crowder would have to show people saw them say “change my mind” on CNN and thought Crowder was involved. If it was in the title of the show, a huge slim maybe. But in the full show, in a debate, with someone saying “change my mind,” it’s absurd to think Crowder has a case.
I am a lawyer, but not a trademark lawyer. Just knowledgeable enough to be dangerously wrong, I guess.
But trademark protection must be tied to a product, and don’t provide protection against a word or phrase being used at all.
And so the strength of a trademark description relies on where it lies on the spectrum between totally fanciful words invented specifically for the trademarked use (Xerox, Exxon, Pepsi), arbitrary words that are normal words but have nothing to do with the product (Apple computers, Monster energy drinks), suggestive words that have something to do with the product (Coppertone for suntan lotion, Airbnb for an online service for BnB listings), descriptive words (Quarter Pounder for a burger that is a quarter pound in weight), to fully generic words for products that can’t be limited to one producer/seller (bicycle, automobile, hamburger).
Common terms can be trademarked, but the scope of protection is necessarily much narrower. Apple can enforce its trademark in computers and electronics. Monster Energy Drink can enforce its trademark in beverages.
Crowder’s “Change my mind” trademark seems pretty tough to enforce. It’s at best a descriptive mark, and descriptive marks are hard to enforce unless the mark is so distinctive in commerce (like McDonald’s Quarter Pounder) that a consumer might be confused about who is producing it. I don’t think any regular person on the street will assume that a CNN-produced town hall with James Talarico is sponsored or licensed or produced by Crowder’s team, so there’s no risk of consumer confusion.
But like I said, I’m not a trademark lawyer so I wouldn’t put too much weight in what I say.
Would be very funny if this actually resulted in him losing the trademark because it’s too generic
Just so you know, I’m not a litigious person
Proceeds to threaten litigation
The podcaster, popular in the MAGAverse, went further as he accused the network and its partners of using his phrase for political purposes.
“Once you rip it off and use it for propaganda, I now have a problem, and I have to come for everything!”
…as opposed to being used for… what exactly? What does Crowder think his little bs “debates” are?
“Why are you making me do this to you?”
My initial reaction was “Stephen … Crowder? Do I know that name?”
Maybe this is a bid to stay relevant, as much as it is anything else.
Very snowflake-like behavior.
He might still be sensitive about the subject since his wife changed her mind and got herself an “ex-” prefix.
Wow, who knew that Steven Crowder came up with the phrase ‘change my mind’… TIL…
How’s the divorce going Steven?
Steven WHO?
The dipshit from the “change my mind” meme
He’s the guy who invented holding a mug in a smug way.
