.
.
.
Irvine Mayoral candidate Katherine Daigle put up new signs around town
that include a logo
suspiciously like this one.
However, Katherine is not the Republican-endorsed candidate; Steven Choi is.
Is Katherine repeating Gail Eastman‘s mistake? Does anybody care?
UPDATE: OC GOP chair Scott Baugh has released a cease and desist letter asking Katherine to not use the elephant.
Yeah, this kind of stuff can’t happen.
I don’t know what you’re thinking Ms. Daigle, but this is bad form. Take ’em down.
She’s our Irvine Valkyrie, she should see this.
Should be easy to fix too, just lop off the bottom!
Got the stars off half, we will get the rest before the end of the week.
We just bought white paint and Brittany dotted the stars out.
Too bad over my little white elephant.
I will write a few more articles, at the very least I will voice my opinions over my little white elephant, thank you Vern & Greg for your trust and empathy.
Enjoy your weekend, thanks guys
It’s just not worth the hassle because there are so few of these signs around and plus she is helping siphon votes away from Mary Ann Gaido.
I also love that Evan Chemers, who Moxley claims was an Agran plant in 2012, is doing a better job running on a “slow growth” platform, than Larry Agran is. Even the high schoolers liked his “synchronize all traffic lights” sign. His second sign was explicitly slow growth.
Chemers has to be hurting Fox. (and maybe Schott — that’s harder to determine).
Does he have a chance to win?
Given that (1) he is self-funding with only a $17,000 and (2) I have not seen any hit mailers against him, I would guess not.
I predict he’ll repeat his 2012 performance of 24%: 10 points ahead of Daigle, but 16 points behind Agran.
It’s kind of sad in a way. He is trying to do this the old fashioned way: he will have knocked on 8,000 doors by election day.
Moxley said that about Chemers too in 2012? He said that also about Katherine in 2012. How many plants does Moxley claim Agran had in 2012? A greenhouse of ’em?
If you’re going to infringe, might as well go big. Change it to R2-D2 or something.
Hi Guys
It is an elephant one by my design and paid for.
You can pick up an image on the internet and one from the many sign companies that use an elephant or a donkey.
Simply an elephant that I like and I am a conservative and I am not endorsed by the OCGOP and I will never will be since I do not need to receive their endorsement to run a conservative campaign. If your candidate was endorsed you may want to consider telling him or giving him a clue since he is your “paid for” candidate!
That’s not an acceptable excuse.
Take it off or take them down.
Or you could paste one of those red circles with a slash over them! Then it’s editorial commentary and is perfectly fair game!
(P.S. Don’t actually do this. I’m just being mischievous.)
So if I change the color of Mickey’s suspenders Disney won’t sue me?
Are you waiting for a judge to tell you what you can’t do? That sounds a lot like Mr. Larry’s MO.
Of course I meant to say and then use Mickey to advertise my med MJ co-op!
It’s the MO of many many powerful corporations as well. As you know.
Actually it’s also the MO of just about every government agency I’ve ever had contact with – particularly when it comes to obeying their own ordinances, skirting CEQA and approving illegal development.
The County of Orange is probably the biggest offender I’ve ever seen.
Dear Mr. Baugh:
Thank you for your October 23, 2014 letter. But I’m happy to report I am not using the official logo of the Republican Party. The official Republican Party logo uses three colors and has three stars that are significantly larger than the three stars the image I use which is only one color. The trunk of the elephant in the official party logo is virtually a reverse J-shape with the straight edge while my image’s trunk is more sloped.
Nowhere in my literature or signage do I state I have the OC GOP endorsement so I am not trying to falsely convey the Republican Party is behind my candidacy. I do wish to communicate to voters I am a Republican. All sorts of print and electronic media use the official Republican Party logo (A ELEPHANT) in the context of news stories; please advise me on your intention to sue these news organizations for using the official logo without the party’s permission as well.
Additionally, I have reviewed all 35 pages of the OC GOP bylaws and do not find a single rule governing the use of the official GOP logo for only endorsed candidates. Subsequently, I have reviewed the bylines of the California Republican Party Bylaws and find no similar rule governing the use of the Party’s logo. Please enlighten me to what rule I have broken.
Additionally, Mayor Choi, to my knowledge is not using the official Republican Party logo in any of his official campaign literature or any of the mailers prepared by IEs promoting his candidacy. Perhaps he is ashamed to be associated with the Party. I am not.
I have no intention of using the three-colored Elephant logo with three large stars. But you have no authority to dictate how I run my campaign or what graphical elements I choose for my signs or literature. And I am happy to protect my Constitutional right to free speech in Court. I earned over 11,000 votes in the last election and there are many Republicans in Irvine who would prefer to vote for someone other than Mayor Choi in the coming election.
Thank you again for your letter that confirms Mayor Choi views me as a threat.
Sincerely,
Katherine Daigle
“And I am happy to protect my Constitutional right to free speech in Court.”
I guess you just answered my question. However, it is not a free-speech issue but, as you are aware, a copyright infringement issue. How far can you tweak a logo before it’s no longer somebody else’s?
Actually, a lawsuit might be a good idea to resolve these dumb elephant theft issue once and for all.
This is just absurd. Legality aside, this is an ethical issue.
Woefully short of acceptable.
(This is not intended as legal advice; I’m just addressing some general issues that David has raised.)
This falls within the area of trademark infringement, not copyright.
The question of “how far can you tweak a logo before it’s no longer somebody else’s?” is exactly the right one. Corporations, you may note, do this all of the time and get away with it. Trademark holders are required to defend their trademarks, which is what Baugh has done here. (I doubt that he’d be found to have abandoned the trademark because he chose not to file suit.)
However — and this is important — it is ALSO raises a free speech issue. To the extent that someone tweaks the trademark enough so that it doesn’t go beyond a threshold level, their right to use it is a First Amendment right.
Ethics are another matter, of course.
“it is ALSO raises a free speech issue”
Why? Because the trademark has been boosted as part of a political campaign rather than say, for pure profit motive by a competitor?
I don’t really get the difference. If a logo is registered, it’s registered.
That’s because your analysis of the trademark infringement could be wrong. As I recall, David, you’re not a lawyer. And, unlike me, you’ve never practiced in or contributed to a practice guide on trademark law.
You’re presuming that the white elephants that Katherine is using here clearly infringe the trademark. I’m telling you that it’s no slam dunk. And if it isn’t, then yes, the First Amendment defense comes into play.
I’m glad to see Katherine Daigle isn’t letting this jerk bully her.
You really ought to rethink this.
You’re 100% wrong. I don’t know you, you don’t know me, and I have no real interest in your race. I’m only saying something because that’s how obvious this poor choice is.
Again, take it off or take them down.
Katherine,
As we’ve consulted in the past, you’re welcome to contact me if you want to consult here. I started to write something that I had hoped would address just general legal principles, but it’s hard to separate them from the facts presented here.
I can suggest publicly that if you want to see this litigated, you seek out Gail Eastman to join you. She can apparently get access to a lot more money.
Greg
I may go ahead and white out my stars, then it is an elephant, plain and simple. This was never an intent to assume anything from a paid for candidate. I am a conservative and I wanted and will make sure they (voters) know it, and have an option to a “PAID FOR” candidate.
Thanks Greg
Whiting out the stars does seem like a wise choice.
Greg said the same thing, so sad, I loved my elephant and it will stay minus a white star or two.
Are they that afraid of another conservative on the ballot, that may not agree with every word and “TEXT” that comes to him? hehehe 🙂
Ms. Daigle, a news organization’s use of the GOP elephant logo in a story would fall under fair-use protections. It’s totally different than what you’ve done here.
An open-and-shut case of copyright infringement…strengthened by the fact that both marks are used in a political context. It’s not like Ms. Daigle is starting, say, a stuffed elephant toy company.
Here’s a copy of the letter Chairman Baugh sent to Daigle.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=172973303
Those of you who are having difficulty accepting an elephant, please review my campaign media and marketing Ms. Deirdre Murphy research
“If you want to say ‘GOP’ and design an elephant that’s similar, want to design an elephant that’s not precisely the same as ours, that’s fine,” RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross told Politico. “Our elephant is specific. It’s stylized, it’s blue and red, it has three stars across its back that are tilted. They’re using that precise elephant.”
This article has a quote from chairman concerning this :
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11834.html
*Ugh*
It’s not about what you CAN do. It’s about what you SHOULD do.
If we’re going to learn anything about the Republican fiasco in Anaheim it’s that we need more political leaders who understand that what governs their behavior in office is what they should do and not what they can do.
Pulling a stunt like this doesn’t exactly give me a whole lot of confidence in how you’d choose to govern.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And then, Zenger, there’s ALSO the possibility of a fatally damaging admission by the person asserting the trademark claim!
WHEW! Funny!