Lawsuit possible over "Horry Kow" t-shirts in Wrigleyville

[sheethead]

I'm not going to deny that there are MANY people that find racism funny.

 

Even more interesting is how many people of the race that is the butt of the joke find it funny. For example, I found Chris Rock in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back to be very funny. Guess I gave away my race.

[BrewCrewRising]

It plays on the stereotype that Japanese or Chinese allegedly can't properly pronounce L and/or R sounds.

It is true that the Japanese don't significantly differentiate between R and L phonemes, and thus some Japanese speakers of English will not stress the "L" sound when it comes up and it sounds more like what we think of as an "R".

I used to live in Japan and teach English, and some of my students would make fun of themselves for that (Not half as much as they made fun of my Japanese though). So part of me finds sound of "Hory Cow" as funny in a certain context.

 

But that shirt does have a bit of a WWII Bugs Bunny anti-Japanese propoganda feel about it. I have to admit I can't tell if the cub is supposed to have an epicanthic fold to appear Asian. That would totally give it the WWII propaganda look.

[Brian the Automator]

Even more interesting is how many people of the race that is the butt of the joke find it funny. For example, I found Chris Rock in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back to be very funny. Guess I gave away my race.

It IS one thing to make fun of yourself, and another to make fun of others, I will admit that.

 

[clancyphile]

Once these shirts were seen as popular, people began to make knockoffs. Now, add the lengthy legal battle, and these things will fly off the street vendors.

 

Couldn't happen to a nicer baseball tam, if you ask me.

 

(And I'll dish out the Schadenfreude given that the Cubs knocked Gallardo out for the season).

[Brewtacular]

And if racism was never funny, Chris Rock, Carlos Mencia, George Lopez, etc. would not have made millions in show business.

Context. I doubt laughter would be the reaction if you put one of Chris Rock's zingers on a t-shirt and walked about town. Without context the only thing the t-shirt offers us is that "asians" are somehow less, mentally or physically, than us.

 

[Gopher74]

And if racism was never funny, Chris Rock, Carlos Mencia, George Lopez, etc. would not have made millions in show business. Do we know for sure this t-shirt wasn't conceived by an Asian? Would that make it OK if it was?

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Are you saying that because some people find it funny, then it's alright? I can honestly only hope that's not what you're saying, but until you clear it up, I'm not sure what to think.

 

By the way, sorry, I just had a REAL big glass of water...you know, the "estrogen" water.

[sheethead]

Context. I doubt laughter would be the reaction if you put one of Chris Rock's zingers on a t-shirt and walked about town. Without context the only thing the t-shirt offers us is that "asians" are somehow less, mentally or physically, than us.

 

How does this t-shirt insinuate "asians" are somehow less, mentally or physically, than anyone else? It's poking fun at dialect and Harry Caray. I understand comedy and context, which is why the shirt is only marketable to Cubs fans and maybe only Cubs fans at or around Wrigley. Out of context would be like wearing a "I Hate Boston Fans" shirt to a Bulls/Bucks game.

 

Are you saying that because some people find it funny, then it's alright?

 

While I personally would not by one, I have no problem with it. It's a free country. No worse than the "Big Johnson" t-shirts of the 90's IMO. The only thing that may be wrong with the shirt is the unlicensed use of the Cub logo. But even that was altered, so I don't think litigation has a leg to stand on. But someone needs to sue someone, that is the true American way.

 

By the way, sorry, I just had a REAL big glass of water...you know, the "estrogen" water.

 

Me too, a liter of water http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif

 

 

[jwill535]

Only thing more offensive then this shirt are people who get offended by stuff that isnt directed at them. Yes I realize that we all can notice something that would be offensive to a certain group, but the crusader act gets old. You see this mostly when it comes to Native American issues, you tend to see Caucasians getting up in arms and claiming something to be offensive without even asking the group that should be offensive if it is. Some people just need to turn the old sensitivity meter down a bit.

[gregmag]

Only thing more offensive then this shirt are people who get offended by stuff that isnt directed at them. Yes I realize that we all can notice something that would be offensive to a certain group, but the crusader act gets old. You see this mostly when it comes to Native American issues, you tend to see Caucasians getting up in arms and claiming something to be offensive without even asking the group that should be offensive if it is. Some people just need to turn the old sensitivity meter down a bit.

First of all, how am I supposed to ask "Native Americans" if they think, say, the name "Indians" is offensive? Do you have their address? Do they all speak with one voice? If some of them do find the name offensive (as anyone who doesn't live in a bomb shelter would know they do), am I allowed to agree with them, or do I have to keep my opinion to myself?

 

Second, why can't I be offended by something that isn't directed at me? If somebody calls my wife a [expletive deleted], do you mind if I object? How about my daughter? If I get to object in those cases, might I not reasonably take the next step and extend my objection to the use of that term against women in general, none of whom I consider any more deserving of generic abuse than my wife or daughter?

Third, and most basic, who the hell are you to tell me what to think? You call me a "crusader" because I occasionally care about something other than my own self-interest? Well, I've got some labels for you too, but I'll keep them to myself because -- without asking -- I think they might offend you.

Greg.

(edit: language --1992)

[sheethead]

No more water for you.

[jwill535]

If some of them do find the name offensive (as anyone who doesn't live in a bomb shelter would know they do), am I allowed to agree with them, or do I have to keep my opinion to myself?

First off, settle down and breathe. I am refering to situations like The Fighting Sioux, or FSU Seminoles. The NCAA and other deem it offensive, yet the respective tribes have no problem with it and in fact support and find pride in the names. Another example would be Chief Illini, a dance and display done by a student trained by members of a local tribe(if I remember correctly there are no more Illini.)

As to your wife or daughter(which I also have) its apples and oranges. There is a difference between someone disrespecting someone in your family and that you care about vs. a play on a stereotype that a group may or may not find offensive. I mean if we want to say that the "slanted eyes" is offensive to the asian culture, that what would that say about anime or stuff like Pokemon or Dragonballz where most of the characters have an asian design and are shown with slanted eyes while showing joy.

 

Yes you can say I am self absorbed with my own life to put effort into caring about what happens to people that I dont even know. I am more worried about making sure me and my family are happy and taken care off, everyone else can fend for themselves.

 

 

(edit: long nested quote --1992)

[TooLiveBrew]

The NCAA and others deem it offensive, yet the respective tribes have no problem with it and in fact support and find pride in the names.

Many of those 'others' are tribe members. It's not true that every tribe represented doesn't have a problem with it... the ones that receive compensation are the ones that don't feel slighted. The most recent (<--iirc) Seminole opposition came from a tribe in Oklahoma. The tribes in Fla. are compensated for FSU's use... the tribe in OK that was upset, no compensation.

Before this all spins into a debate on ethics or racism, etc. Here are two threads from the O-T forum earlier this month.

"Which teams are due for a new logo?"

"Shed some light on offensive team names"

Both have some interesting discussion on these points.

[Gopher74]

While I personally would not by one, I have no problem with it. It's a free country. No worse than the "Big Johnson" t-shirts of the 90's IMO. The only thing that may be wrong with the shirt is the unlicensed use of the Cub logo. But even that was altered, so I don't think litigation has a leg to stand on. But someone needs to sue someone, that is the true American way.

Nobody's questioning the legality of the situation. Nobody doubts that they have the right to make offensive shirts. Nobody doubts that Neo-Nazi's have the right to congregate and spread their vile hate. You're absolutely right, it IS a free country and that's what makes it great. I guess it comes off as you defending it as being "alright". Frankly, I'd much rather this be allowed in our society than not regardless of how distasteful I find it, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it's really offensive.

 

[sheethead]

I'd much rather this be allowed in our society than not regardless of how distasteful I find it, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it's really offensive.

 

So it's alright then, right? Because if society deems it so then it shall be. Sort of like alcohol vs. mary jane.

 

Nobody's questioning the legality of the situation. Nobody doubts that they have the right to make offensive shirts.

 

Ahh to digress, the legality is the discussion the thread title seemed to invoke. It just spun out of control when many started to judge the creator, the buyers, and Cubs fans in general. He who cast the last stone, or whatever [insert cliche here].

 

From the thread title and the legality angle, its all about billable hours. And the press just made the creator and subsequent rip-off artists richer than before.

 

Nobody doubts that Neo-Nazi's have the right to congregate and spread their vile hate.

 

They lose that right when they inflict hate onto others in the form of physical abuse. Huge difference. However, some people can be hurt much greater with words and pictures than with fists and feet. That is why there is so much money to be made in anger management.

[PKBadger]

The shirt vendors are ignorant at best, vile at worst. The team officials quoted in the story are acting like morons. This isn't a trademark issue; parody is protected under the First Amendment. No sentient human would confuse the shirt with the team logo. They're trying to ban offensive speech, and that's both stupid and legally out of bounds.

 

Greg.

 

Now, I am not a lawyer, but would someone explain how this is NOT a trademark issue?

(from Wikipedia)

Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers.

Where the respective marks or products or services are not identical, similarity will generally be assessed by reference to whether there is a likelihood of confusion that consumers will believe the products or services originated from the trademark owner.

The Court there announced eight specific elements to measure likelihood of confusion:

1. Strength of the mark
2. Proximity of the goods
3. Similarity of the marks
4. Evidence of actual confusion
5. Marketing channels used
6. Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark
8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines

Proximity of the goods? They're being sold across the street from Wrigley Field. Similarity of the marks? That's pretty clear. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark? Pretty obvious - profit off the Cubs intellectual property.

 

I could certainly see how a consumer might assume that the Chicago Cubs are selling these shirts or licensed their sale. And the Cubs could suffer damages if their brand is associated with racism or intolerance (how to quantify those damages is another story).

 

Again, not a lawyer. In my grad school program for marketing, we recently took a law class that just covered the basics, and I'm legitimately curious about this case because given what I had been taught, it would seem that the Cubs have legal standing. So if anyone can lend more insight, please post!

[sheethead]

I have no insight to offer, but great post. Looks like there could be a legitamite case.

[jwill535]

While they may fit into the categories, getting it through court is another issue. Just like knock off scents that you see that say "Just Like Calvin Kline". They change one minor thing and it can be considered different.

[Invader3K]

The whole slant eyed thing probably puts the shirt over the line, IMO. Makes it look like some 1950s Asian comic book villain or something.