Richard Branson Claims People May Confuse 'I Am Not A Virgin Jeans' With His Virgin Properties

from the er,-they're-saying-they're-not-virgin,-richard... dept

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Forbes has an article about how lawyers representing Richard Brandson's Virgin property have sent a letter to "I Am Not A Virgin," a small jeans company in NYC , complaining about its attempt to register the trademark on its name in the US. The Forbes report falsely states that it's a copyright issue (seriously, don't people check these things?) and also seems to miss that the letter is about a planned opposition to a trademark registration. Peter Heron, I Am Not A Virgin's founder, put together an amusing video reading the letter and questioning Branson's claims:My favorite bit is him asking if Branson thinks that people walking by "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" in the store are likely to be confused by it. In fact, you could argue that the likelihood of confusion (or dilution, since that's in play too) is extremely minimal here. Hell, the entireof the company is claiming that it'sa "virgin," though I'd imagine that's a reference to the more common definition of the word, rather than Branson's widespread brand. Considering that one way companies often avoid tradmeark issues is to clearly state that they are "not affiliated" with a particular trademark, how much stronger of a not affiliated statement would Heron need than having the very brand claim it's not the other brand?To be fair, the letter itself is much more on the friendly side of the spectrum, when it comes to legal nastygrams. It doesn't take a completely hardline stance, tries to express a common viewpoint (applauding the support for "the planet" and entrepreneurs), and even makes some (kinda silly) suggestions for alternate names ("I Am Not Chaste," "I Am Not Pure" -- to which Heron suggests "how about 'I Am Not Made By Richard Branson'). But, it doesn't go to Jack Daniels' level of friendliness, in making it clear that no change will lead the company to officially seek to have Heron's trademark (which he's had for 3.5 years) revoked by the USPTO.It's also clear that Heron is milking this for all its worth as a marketing strategy (which is a pretty reasonable strategy, given the situation). But that raises more questions about why Virgin/Branson even went down this road in the first place. They had to know that they were just asking for a public shaming.

Filed Under: i am not a virgin, jeans, peter heron, richard branson, trademark, virgin