Some guy in Wisconsin changed his name while running for Sheriff. And then the real Andy Griffith sued him. I do like the article says it was because of the US trademark system though. In a lot of these that doesn't come up until after everyone gets upset at the plaintiff.
You have a valid point on the before vs during - that was a misread. As for the trademark, the issue is trademark law not only covers using it for profit (which you apparently didn't), but also any possible negative effects on the use of the name for other things (confusion with him). The unfortunate part is our trademark system is messed up enough that if he wants to protect himself against people causing real problems, he has to take action on cases that are highly unlikely to have any real threat (such as yours), even if he doesn't want to do so. I actually think it's funny that the national news picked up on it, and the reason I mentioned the trademark part is that it makes at least some readers who see these (and don't see the follow-ups) realize how ridiculous the system is that it creates this type of lawsuits.
From the article:
"The Platteville music store co-owner said he spent $5,000 on his failed campaign and changed his name to garner publicity for the race."
That seems foolish. He admits he did it for publicity and then cries foul when the real guy complains about it? While no-one would ever mistake the two, the article does make it look like the name change was an attempt to glean some popularity from the actor.
Weird.
As far as trademarks go, I have no idea what the laws are behind everything, but I find that little "™" annoying. It seems that people are trying to trademark everything.
I saw a shirt that had "JESUS" in big letters with a little symbol I mistook for the copyright symbol. I was laughing pretty hard. :)
You should try trademarking that, see what happens ;)
It'd be neat to get a cease and desist from the pope.
You know, even with the reputation they have, I think the guys in the USPTO would probably not grant that one.
I've heard the part about having to enforce trademark indiscriminately being required to retain the trademark, so that sounds legit. Also, whether or not he won, he changed his name preceding the election so it at least give the air that the two are related. Barring the notion he did this to harm his chances, he did it as a stunt of some kind, intended to garner attention if not support. That alone would lead me to think he intended to profit, albeit not in a monetary sense.
On top of that though, it seems like the guy that changed his name took affront to the actor taking legal action, which I find odd. Publicity stunt or not, the guy made an effort to gain *something* on someone else's IP(Intellectual Property) without contacting them. I don't believe people thought it was the real person but still, that wasn't your "name" to use, don't be surprised the owner took issue.
And as far as it being "unamerican" to go after someone you think misappropriated something belonging to you, that's pretty silly. Mock outrage aside I feel like the US has a history of defending people's "property". If this was a big joke, why not acquiesce to the real Andy's terms, change your name back and print an apology/explanation. Why are you defending yourself if you feel there's nothing to defend, say you're sorry and game over, at least that's how it seems in the story.
Copyright ©2000-2008 Jeremy Mooney (jeremy-at-qux-dot-net)
Some guy (me) changed his name to Andy Griffith BEFORE he ran for sheriff, not WHILE. And, the lawsuit will fail, because there is no trade (commerce, profit) involved here. Notice how the word "trade" is in the compound word "trademark"? That's because "trademark" protects trade, not everything. And, people SHOULD be upset with that horse's ass, Andy S. Griffith for filing such a ridiculous lawsuit. Have a good day -- Andrew Jackson Griffith