Another Hobby Lobby company is becoming involved in a lawsuit.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3881416?embargo=10


Beneath the thousands of twinkling Christmas lights on display at the Oklahoma City retailer North Pole City, a turf war is brewing with greeting card giant Hallmark Cards.


The Oklahoma City seasonal store, which sells Christmas ornaments and holiday collectibles, filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit on Monday against Hallmark over the use of the name North Pole City.

The retailer filed the lawsuit after it learned of Hallmark's plans to use the North Pole City name on its merchandise, store owner David Green said in a statement released through his attorney Tuesday.]


Founded by Green, the North Pole City store has sold decorations and Christmas themed items from its 26,000 square-foot building off Interstate 44 since the early 1990s. The store's candy-striped pole sign with Santa climbing up the side is an Oklahoma City landmark.

Green registered the North Pole City name with the Oklahoma secretary of state in 1997 and the business has operated the website northpolecity.com since 1995. (North Pole City's David Green is no relation to the David Green who founded and leads Oklahoma City-based retailer Hobby Lobby)

I'm thinking they have a fairly good case here.

Another Hobby Lobby company is becoming involved in a lawsuit.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3881416?embargo=10

I'm thinking they have a fairly good case here.

The subject heading says "Another Hobby Lobby Company..." but from what's posted it says David Green is not related to the David Green who founded Hobby Lobby.

But I can't read the story because I don't have a NewsOK digital subscription anymore. Waiting for a good deal to pop up again.

Is there something in the article that says it's a Hobby Lobby company?

According to the article, there is no connection to Hobby Lobby.
C. T.
From today's paper.
"BUSINESS WRITER
HOLIDAY HUMBUG
North Pole City files infringement lawsuit over name
Brianna Bailey
bbailey@  opubco.com  
Beneath the thousands of twinkling Christmas lights on display at the Oklahoma City retailer North Pole City, a turf war is brewing with greeting card giant Hallmark Cards.
The Oklahoma City seasonal store, which sells Christmas ornaments and holiday collectibles, filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit on Monday against Hallmark over the use of the name North Pole City.
The retailer filed the lawsuit after it learned of Hallmark’s plans to use the North Pole City name on its merchandise, store owner David Green said in a statement released through his attorney Tuesday.
“Hallmark has been well aware that North Pole City has utilized the ‘North Pole City’ phrase or name for some time,” Green said. “We are still hopeful that we can resolve this dispute informally with Hallmark.”
In its lawsuit, the retailer claims that Kansas City based Hallmark is planning to roll out a new line of holiday products branded with the name North Pole City — all without the Oklahoma City business’s permission.
“Without North Pole City’s permission, defendants have indicated their intent to launch products and franchise development for Holiday 2014 around a fictional city called North Pole City,” the Oklahoma City Christmas retailer claims in its lawsuit.
Hallmark also has sought trademarks for the name “North Pole City,” the lawsuit claims.
Records show that Hallmark applied with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in June to register the trademark North Pole City.
Hallmark has plans to use the North Pole City name on a “series of fictional books, stationary, greeting cards, gift wrapping paper,” as well as “cookie decoration devices, serving plates and cheese spreaders,” according its application filed with the Patent and Trademark Office.
The company also plans to use the North Pole City theme for everything from children’s books to holiday socks, and has even applied for the rights to use the name to produce motion pictures and cable television programs, according to trademark applications.
Founded by Green, the North Pole City store has sold decorations and Christmas themed items from its 26,000 squarefoot building off Interstate 44 since the early 1990s. The store’s candy-striped pole sign with Santa climbing up the side is an Oklahoma City landmark.
Green registered the North Pole City name with the Oklahoma secretary of state in 1997 and the business has operated the website northpolecity.com   since 1995. (North Pole City’s David Green is no relation to the David Green who founded and leads Oklahoma City-based re tailer Hobby Lobby).
In its lawsuit, the Oklahoma City store is asking a federal judge to order Hallmark to stop using the name. It also wants Hallmark to compensate it for any lost profits and for Hallmark to hand over any product it has already manufactured bearing the North Pole City name.
Julie O’Dell, a spokeswoman for Hallmark, said the company’s legal department had yet to see a copy of the lawsuit. She declined to comment further until the company has had a chance to review the complaint."

From my limited knowledge both HL David Green and NPC David Green are nice men. But as the article notes, they are not the same person.

They simply share a fairly common name.

From my limited knowledge both HL David Green and NPC David Green are nice men. But as the article notes, they are not the same person.

They simply share a fairly common name.

You're absolutely correct. That was my mistake.

North Pole City has been around since at least the mid-90s, when I lived in Oklahoma as a child, if not longer. They are just now getting to this?

This is the problem with our entire copyright and trademark system. This place takes 3 common words from the English language and now they are the only ones who get to use that combination? What a load of ****. Neither entity should prevail - common sense should.

Let's see now, the words "general" and "electric" are 2 common words from the English language. How could that ever become a problem?

"Hallmark . . .
http://zrs2017.edublogs.org/files/2012/09/10450297-santa-clause-ykni9z.jpg
"When you care enough to sue the very best."

© Radical Moderate 2013 All Rights (and wrongs) Reserved (yeah, right)

So . . . Do you suppose GE (General Electric) would be petty enough to sue, say, a re-cycled clothing, consignment used art and secondhand pottery store if they called themselves General Eclectic?
(rhetorical question: of course they would.
hell, they'd probabaly sue if the name was Gentler Eclectic.
and a Krusty's Toy Box type place called Genital Electric?
It would be a warm day at the north pole before they had even a chance of avoiding a court date.
why . . . it's hard to believe that David Green isn't suing David Green . . .)

This is the problem with our entire copyright and trademark system. This place takes 3 common words from the English language and now they are the only ones who get to use that combination? What a load of ****. Neither entity should prevail - common sense should.

There's a small town in Alaska called North Pole.
North Pole, Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole,_Alaska)

The title they use at the top of their website is City of North Pole. Funny how flipping words around and Capitalizing the C in North Pole City makes it a trademark.

The real Santa lives in City of North Pole, Alaska. The fake Santa lives at North Pole City. Just so all you kids out there reading this knows. haha.

This is the problem with our entire copyright and trademark system. This place takes 3 common words from the English language and now they are the only ones who get to use that combination? What a load of ****. Neither entity should prevail - common sense should.Apple is a pretty common word as well.

Garrison Keillor (of "A Prairie Home Companion" fame) sued--and prevailed!--over a line of teeshirts emblazoned with:
"A Prairie Ho Companion."

And then there was that entire "The North Face" vs. "The South Butt" dispute a while back . . .
("North" is nothing at all like "South" and "Face" is generally nothing like "Butt", but then there's that pesky "The" . . .)

If GE and Apple want to create a logo (even a logo that constrains their name) then they can trademark/copyright that, but the language belongs to all of us. No one should own words.

Copyright this:

http://cdn-0.famouslogos.us/images/general-electric-logo.jpg

Not this:

General Electric

Just the mere use of the name does not constitute infringement. Look at the Apple Records lawsuit against Apple Computer in regards to iTunes and the iPod. Sometimes the lawsuits are ridiculous and should be based in common sense, like the Texas Roadhouse restaurant lawsuits against real Texas roadhouses that existed long before the Indianapolis based steak chain even existed. The use of those two words together should not be something worthy of copyright/trademark as in Texas that was a generic term.

If GE and Apple want to create a logo (even a logo that constrains their name) then they can trademark/copyright that, but the language belongs to all of us. No one should own words.

Copyright this:

http://cdn-0.famouslogos.us/images/general-electric-logo.jpg

Not this:

General Electrici disagree with you

i disagree with you

So does the US Supreme Court. However, our new Chinese overlords agree with me, so I have that going for me :).

So does the US Supreme Court. However, our new Chinese overlords agree with me, so I have that going for me :).It could be that I'm not entirely understanding you either. If you're telling me though, that someone should be able to open up a business called General Electric, than yeah we just flat out disagree lol

What about Specific Electric?
Or Lt. General Electric?
How about Four Star General Electric?

"All Right. Knock it off with the feeble, friggin' attempts at punnery, already" . . .
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111121051917/spyro/images/e/e5/General_Robot.jpg

(Do y' s'pose that a Japanese construction company by the name of General Erectric would catch any legal flak?)
(Or a North Vietnamese/Chinese/German Fusion tapas bar called Ho Chow Mein?)

Four Star General Electric is Number 1 on Angie's List . . . with a bullet, btw.

I love taking my Grandsons to North Pole City. It actually quiets them down for a bit. Visual overload.

I love taking my Grandsons to North Pole City. It actually quiets them down for a bit. Visual overload.

"Hey, Grampa . . . Can I have this BB Gun?"
("no, it'll put your eye out")
http://vinylmationkingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/acstory.jpg

"Okay . . . Then can we go to the REAL 'North Pole City'?"
("g'dansk? i don't see why not . . .")

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjrY5SblX50N8pvw14VsW6p3vTpk6IX 5ZHPJtHVc1AfP2N2IQ6

This isn't true in my experience(s).

It takes more than just the word(s) - its how they are used AND (more importantly) how they are perceived. Its actually more common for people to be sued for NOT using the exact same words but using somewhat similar words in combination with a confusingly similar product/service/production/etc.

"Would the buying public be confused and/or would the original company be harmed?"

Awhile back a company in California settled with me over their use of the term 'Video Vigilante' - they were using the name in conjunction with a similar activity/production. They thought the term was generic and unprotected - but not so, as I trademarked it some time earlier. It didn't progress far before they realized they would lose in court so they settled.

However, another company uses the term 'Video Vigilante' in some marketing services and I'd have no cause for action against them because how they use the name is not similar or confusing with how I registered the term and use it.

So . . . Do you suppose GE (General Electric) would be petty enough to sue, say, a re-cycled clothing, consignment used art and secondhand pottery store if they called themselves General Eclectic?Dunno about that, but back in the 80s when I (briefly) owned "Kernal's Korn" popcorn factory, we got sued for trademark infringement by "Karmelkorn" despite having a valid federal registered trade mark on our name...

They drove us out of business with attorney's fees trying to fight it.

I was glad to see them go under a few years later...

Dunno about that, but back in the 80s when I (briefly) owned "Kernal's Korn" popcorn factory, we got sued for trademark infringement by "Karmelkorn" despite having a valid federal registered trade mark on our name...

They drove us out of business with attorney's fees trying to fight it.

I was glad to see them go under a few years later...

Well, that's a shame . . .
Yet, on the bright side, if "Kernal's Korn" hadn't gotten ya' this guy probably would have.
http://www.nndb.com/people/557/000109230/colonel-sanders-1.jpg

Several years ago, KFC drove "Kernal Sanders" (a business devoted to polishing popcorn kernals so they would pop better) out of business, so they knew it could be done.

Actually they would have had a much better case against us, because our logo was a fairly obvious caricature of Colonel Sanders and if you look at my avatar (which is a 1995 shot of me), I also wear a goatee and in those days it was pointed much like his! Both the company name and the logo were already in place before we bought the place, though -- and apparently KFC didn't care since we didn't compete with them in any way. KaramelKorn, however, had opened a franchise in Norman that was directly competing with us. Had we been adequately capitalized, we should have countersued them for infringing OUR trademark, since the national chain had failed to object when the previous owners registered it with the USPTO -- but we didn't have the funds to compete, and went belly-up after less than a year in the business anyway...