December 13, 2000

1:49 PM

Is Metallica really concerned that a perfume will harm their bottom line and so they must sue? My question is why would Guerlain name a perfume after a heavy metal band unless it smelled like stale cigarettes and beer?
posted by thc (7 comments total)

Seems like Metallica is very trigger happy these days with their "sick the lawyers" button. I can understand protecting your name, I suppose, but overall it seems like they're just suing the pants of everybody. I like their music, but I don't know about their character anymore. I also heard that Lars was heading up a protest in San Francisco against dotcoms, because all the startups are "taking up space" that the artists could be using. Feh!
posted by tomorama at 2:12 PM on December 13, 2000

I can't help but get the feeling that Mr. Ulrich was the kind of kid who would never share the blocks with anyone in kindergarten.
posted by tomorama at 2:29 PM on December 13, 2000

Topic drift alert:

Now that every dot-com and its brother is going down in flames, are the real estate prices coming down in S.F.?
posted by solistrato at 2:55 PM on December 13, 2000

Have Metallica trademarked their name, like Billy Joel and Chicago have? If so, they've got a claim, like it or not.
posted by Dreama at 3:46 PM on December 13, 2000

How do you trademark a name like "Chicago"? I mean, it has a few non-musical connotations, like a little town here on Lake Michigan...
posted by dagnyscott at 7:32 PM on December 13, 2000

Yes, they have trademarked their name. And no, that does not give them a claim to every product that shares their name. They have a trademark relating to a musical group, not a perfume.
posted by attitude at 9:24 PM on December 13, 2000

However -- and I say this without knowledge either way -- if the product is being marketed with a tacit attempt at tying it to the Metallica name then there could be a claim for infringement.
posted by Dreama at 1:09 PM on December 14, 2000