Friendly. In a Take-the-Money-if-You-Know-What’s-Good-for-You Kind of Way.
Step one will be a cease-and-desist letter, Anderson told Konkol, step two, if necessary, a lawsuit. This past Monday step one was E-mailed to Tribune Company attorney Michael Parks.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
She covered the grounds for confusion that the Tribune Company had sown. “The public may believe that the Red Eye newspaper is somehow authorized by or affiliated with Red Eye Press.” (A misimpression as likely to embarrass the press as the Tribune Company.) “Furthermore, the damage caused to Red Eye Press by the use of this term is compounded by the fact that the Chicago Tribune is using the terms Red Eye on a newspaper directed at consumers 18 to 34 years old.” Such consumers “comprise a large percentage of those who purchase Red Eye Press books. These consumers are likely to be familiar with Red Eye Press and again connect it with the Chicago Tribune’s new edition.”
But don’t expect the Tribune to knuckle under. Parks wouldn’t call me back, but Tribune spokeswoman Patty Wetli says the trademark search actually “confirmed we have no conflict with Red Eye Press,” and therefore the Tribune rejects the claim of trademark infringement. Problems such as the one the Tribune might, despite its assertiveness, now be facing can disappear if you throw some money at them. Red Eye Press wasn’t the only Red Eye in the land when the Tribune Company did its trademark search, and it definitely spotted the other one. Based in Boston, Red Eye describes itself as a “nonprofit youth-run political hip hop magazine that seeks to provoke critical thought and provide resources for self empowerment.”
Are you still in business?
Harry Osterman (D) 17,023.
