Here's an oldie-but-goodie article: Komen suing other charities for using the word "cure"

[Hugabear]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html

<snip>
In addition to raising millions of dollars a year for breast cancer research, fundraising giant Susan G. Komen for the Cure has a lesser-known mission that eats up donor funds: patrolling the waters for other charities and events around the country that use any variation of "for the cure" in their names.

So far, Komen has identified and filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred of these Mom and Pop charities, including Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure, Surfing for a Cure and Cupcakes for a Cure--and many of the organizations are too small and underfunded to hold their ground.
<snip>


It will be a cold day in hell before I give any money to this right-wing bloodsucking machine.

[kestrel91316]

1. Typical repigs - they care more about property rights than women's health.

[TheKentuckian]

5. not to mention the arrogance of trying to own "cure" anyway.

[southernyankeebelle]

2. This organization has woken a sleeping tiger. Women will give heavily to PP from now on.

We need to spread the word after 2012 don't trust Komen to give any money to PP. We are on our own.

[gopiscrap]

4. God I hope so

I would love to see these fuckers go down...we need to keep the heat on them...anytime they have an event Occupy" it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Neue Regel]

6. Or you could do something productive...

Like use your energy to organize an alternative charity and raise money for it.

[gopiscrap]

7. To me this is productive....

if we take out a republican asshat organization that's less public airspace their using and more of an ability to get the Dem side of things out...besides why duplicate a good charity, give to Planned Parenthood and your local Dem. Congresscritter's campaign!

[southernyankeebelle]

15. Yes your right. But OWS would bring attention to what they are not doing? I think

it would be a good example but it must be done respectfully and not create chaos. That won't work.

[WingDinger]

3. The stupid thing is, if anyone uses the word CURE, for a medical advancement, they will be visited b

by Gmen with automatic weapons. Cure is a forbidden word.

[Neue Regel]

8. After reading the article, your title isn't accurate

They don't sue other charities for using the word 'cure'. Unless it was left out of the article, they take issue with other charities using "for the cure", as in "____ for the cure". And they don't immediately sue. Instead, they send a letter asking the group to stop using the phrase "for the cure".

As for Komen's response, they said "It's never our goal to shut down a nonprofit, and we try very hard to be reasonable, but it's still our obligation to make sure that our trademarks are used appropriately so there's no confusion in the marketplace over where people's money is going."

How are they being unreasonable? If everybody and anybody could organize a "___ for the cure", regardless of their legitimacy or intent, most people would think the charity was affiliated with SGK, thereby lending credibility, in the eyes of many, to the event or charity that it may not otherwise have.

[izquierdista]

9. "Intellectual property" goes with "non-profit"

Like "baby carriage" goes with "Bengal tiger".

[Neue Regel]

10. I think they should be more lenient than for-profits in allowing similar use of their TM

But I don't agree that they shouldn't defend their trademark at all. Otherwise you'll have scam artists collecting for charities like The United Ways, The United States Red Cross, Salvation Armies, and as many other variations as you can think of.

[izquierdista]

13. They don't have to "defend their trademark" in those cases

In cases like you describe, people get arrested for committing fraud and do jail time.

[JackRiddler]

11. I'm sorry, this is a nonsensical argument given that...

1) "for the cure" is an English phrase that Komen did not invent and should not own

and

2) there is a reason they call themselves Susan G Komen for the Cure, and not just "For the Cure," to distinguish the name; and it is the same reason that other charities call themselves ___Specific Name___ for the Cure. There is no reason that people should confuse the two.

In fact, when others say "for the cure" they will often remind people of the more famous Komen charity, thus raising Komen's profile and revenues.

Until, that is, Komen shows itself to be foolish and uncharitable by bringing such cases against smaller charities.

[Neue Regel]

12. You say it's a nonsensical argument

But you then state, "...when others say "for the cure" they will often remind people of the more famous Komen charity...", which was exactly my point. It's all well and good if the charity is legitimate, but what if it ends up being a scam? Who will the public hold accountable, the scam artists who misappropriated the slogan or SGK for not doing enough to inform people that the fake charity was not associated with their organization?

In addition, I'm not an intellectual property attorney, but based on my very minimal understanding of the subject one must vigorously defend their trademark anytime they see it being misappropriated or risk losing claim to it. Maybe a DUer with knowledge of the subject could explain it more thoroughly (and correctly) to us laypeople?

[JackRiddler]

16. "I am not an intellectual property attorney"

should not be a disqualification in this matter. They are interested parties, soldiers for whatever side hires them who will never argue against what their client expects them to do.

Furthermore, civil law is not like the laws of physics; it's defined as much in the struggle as in the supposed principle. Being an IP attorney is not in itself impressive. You still have to make a credible argument.

Abuses of intellectual property claims are rampant. The common sense in this case, that "for the cure" is a grammatical combination of three generic and ancient English words that preceded the Komen foundation, and that these words without the Komen name do not automatically denote Komen, easily trumps the sophistry that would assign the phrase to an owner.

Komen never fails to use the full name of the foundation. That's all they should have a trademark for.

Unrelated: I agree with whoever here said that no matter who is using it, the phrase is nonsense and misleading. You may be paying for care and measures to help people survive, but you're not paying "for the cure."

[targetpractice]

14. How would "most people" confuse a lung cancer charity, "Kites for a Cure" with SGK?

Because some kites have ribbons? Or, that lungs are anatomically near breasts? Or, both charities seek to "cure" cancer?

It's one thing for SGK to try to protect pink ribbons... But, it's abhorrent that a non-profit would use it's funds to fight other non-profits over the the phrase "for the cure".

I'm just learning about SGK, but have worked for other non-profits... From my fresh perspective, it seems like SGK has lost sight of it's mission and has become drunk on it's own brand and all that entails.