spike spikes spike
June 13, 2003
Say what you like about E! (starting with that stupid exclamation point), but they do have a way with a headline, don't they?
E! Online News - Spike Spikes Spike: A good day for Spike. And a bad day for Spike.
Spike Lee has won the first round in his name-game battle with Viacom as a New York judge on Thursday temporarily barred the media goliath from renaming its TNN cable network Spike TV. [...] For its part, Viacom insisted Lee doesn't have a monopoly on the word. [...] Besides, Kovner argued, Spike Lee's real name is Shelton. Ultimately, though, Tolub didn't buy that argument. "Contrary to defendants' position, the court is of the opinion that in the age of mass communication, a celebrity can in fact establish a vested right in the use of only their first name or a surname," the judge said. "There are many celebrities that are so recognized, including Cher, Madonna, Sting and Liza."
The New York Times article notes that the judge also said, "In addition to the name Spike, there are other indicia that defendants sought to exploit Mr. Lee's persona, most notably Mr. Lee's reputation for irreverence and aggressiveness."
It will be interesting to see where this goes. On the one hand, at least theoretically, Viacom must have invested loads in marketing and research, and has a fair amount of money riding on this. (Although they must have gotten some truly wretched market research on this matter; I don't know anyone who doesn't think that this is a seriously stupid name for a network.) And the lawsuit is just loads of publicity -- if not precisely free -- for the channel. People might be tuning into the old new TNN just to see what all the fuss is about. And given the bond and the fact that Spike Lee may not actually win a permanent injunction, he's got a fair amount of change riding on this as well.
All that said ... Viacom really ought to just surrender now and go back to the drawing board. After all, BCBTBBtv is still available! I wouldn't even charge for coming up with the name! (Someone else would have to do the logo, though. Some places, you just don't want to go.)
Posted by iain at 12:17 PM
spike lee vs spike tv
June 9, 2003
It would appear that the change to Spike TV is, for TNN, perhaps even more misguided than I first thought:
FindLaw's Writ - Hilden: Spike Lee v. Spike TV ..... on June 2, in New York state court, Lee sued TNN, its corporate parents MTV and Viacom, and its President, Albie Hecht, alleging "right of publicity," trademark, and other New York law claims. In addition to seeking an injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the name Spike TV, Lee also seeks money damages. It might seem that Lee's suit is simply an act of hubris - an attempt to virtually copyright the name "Spike." But in fact, the suit may have some merit, and for this reason, Spike TV will be foolish if it fails to seriously consider choosing a new name. [...] The most devastating fact in Lee's favor is this: Hecht apparently admitted in interviews that Spike Lee was one of his major inspirations for his choosing the name "Spike TV." According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Hecht's role models were "Spike the macho vamp[ire] in Buffy the Vampire Slayer; [and] directors Spike Lee and Spike Jonze." To be fair, Hecht is also quoted, in the same article, as saying he wanted to convey that Spike TV would be "cool," and "aggressive," as in, "to spike a volleyball." But clearly, Spike Lee's image was among the connotations Hecht wanted "Spike TV" to conjure up. I believe that this admission makes Lee's case, which otherwise might seem to verge on megalomania, much more sympathetic. It shows that it is not just Lee himself who believes that "Spike TV" connotes "Spike Lee"; the President of Spike TV himself seems to think so, too.
-- By JULIE HILDEN, news.findlaw.com, Monday, June 9, 2003
So let me get this straight-ish: the executive has admitted, without any sort of legal pressure, that he wants the new name of his network to conjure up the images of three living people and a trademarked fictional character.
And he's only facing the one lawsuit. I'm impressed at everyone else's restraint.
(... he wants to conjure the image of Spike the vampire. Who just went up in a big puff of ash. Who notoriously described himself as "love's bitch" once upon a time. Who was on a show with an audience that was mostly female and very small, so that most men, who are their target audience, probably don't have a clue who Spike the vampire was. Um ... whatever.)
Maybe Viacom will take the opportunity to change TNN's name to something less silly than SpikeTV. Maybe something like "Big Cars, Big Trucks, Big Boobs Network for Men". (Hey, it's got Horsepower TV, lots and lots of NASCAR and other car races, a show actually called "Trucks", and its about to broadcast a cartoon called featuring a barely-dressed -- and, one assumes, frequently undressed -- character named "Striperella", voiced by Pamela Anderson. BCBTBBtv would at least be accurate.)
Mind, Lee probably did himself absolutely no favors in the court of public opinion by hiring Johnnie Cochran, but that has nothing to do with the legal merits of his case, or the idiocy of Viacom.
Interesting little tidbit buried in the Herald article: "Viacom, which owns the CBS network and Showtime movie channel, bought TNN in 2000. It announced in April that it would change TNN's name to Spike TV on June 16 in an attempt to attract more men to an audience that is already about two-thirds male." So ... surely the issue would be attracting more women to the network, wouldn't it? Or is the problem the demographics? After all, "Striperella" will probably pull in one or two of the 15-34 age set. (Just one or two.) And "Ren and Stimpy" will probably pull in the upper chunk of that age group, out of pure nostalgia.
"I don't want to be associated with some "Stripperella" crap," Lee said after the hearing. The movie maker said he learned about Spike TV from people who called him to say, "I didn't know you had a new network. What's the programming going to be?"
That would seem to give a certain point to his "likelihood of confusion" charge, wouldn't it?
Posted by iain at 06:00 PM | Comments (7)