The Legal Battle Over Who Gets to Say "YUUUP!" on TV

A reality TV star and a rapper do battle in court over one popular utterance. D'oh! It turns out there are other sounds that are trademarked.


Dave Hester, star of A&E's Storage Wars, is fighting a rapper over use of the signature catchphrase, "YUUUP!"
Noooope[1], this ain't a joke.


Hester has filed a lawsuit against Trey Songz (born Tremaine Neverson) and is seeking a court order that bars the rapper from "interfering" with his use of “YUUUP!”


Attorneys for Songz sent a cease-and-desist letter to Hester that demanded the reality TV star stop uttering the phrase during the show’s auctions of seized goods, according to the NY Post. The rapper says that “YUUUP!” has been his "signature sound” since at least 2009, but evidently, he failed to trademark it.
According to a search of trademark records, Hester registered “YUUUP!” on three occasions, dating back to this past May.


Besides, Hester says that the two uses of "YUUUP!" sound different. Songz’s version, according to the complaint, “resembles an animal-like or nonhuman squeal which begins with a distinct ‘yeeee’ sound before finishing with a squeal-like ‘uuuup’ sound.”


Songz doesn't appear to have a trademark but theoretically could have gotten one on the sound of the word itself. As one court interpreting the USPTO's standards put it, "A sound mark depends upon aural perception of the listener, which may be as fleeting as the sound itself unless, of course, the sound is so inherently different or distinctive that it attaches to the subliminal mind of the listener to be awakened when heard and to be associated with the source or event with which it is struck.”


It's a high threshold. Harley-Davidson learned this the hard way about a decade back when it unsuccessfully attempted to register a sound mark on the syncopated chug of its idling V-twin motorcycle engine.


Of the tens of thousands of trademarks registered, just a fraction of those cover sounds. Examples include the roar of the MGM lion and NBC's three-note musical chime.
Getting a sound mark on a catchphrase is even more rare, but there have been bells of victory[2] for a few companies that have pulled it off.


The silver medal for best sound mark goes to 20th Century Fox, which registered in 2008 a mark consisting of the famous Homer Simpson spoken-word utterance, "D'oh!"


But the gold has to go to Comcast's Versus network, which in 2009 got a sound mark on the word "Holy" being uttered, followed by a bleep, with a cymbal and a descending electric guitar slide in the background. As in, "Look at our ratings! Holy (Bleep) ((Vvvvvvv))!"


If Songz happens to read this post and realizes that he should have gone to the U.S. Trademark Office to get a sound mark on "YUUUP!" he'd best be careful about exclaiming "D'oh!" or saying "Holy" followed by be some bleeps and other strange sounds. Ba dum ching[3]
E-mail: eriqgardner@yahoo.com
Twitter: @eriqgardner

[1]. Not registered
[2]. Not registered
[3]. Not registered, but IBM has put in a patent claim over certain uses of the laugh track.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/legal-battle-who-gets-say-261627
 
Last edited:
Hopefully the verdict is in Trey's favor and I'm sick of any singer being mislabeled as a "rapper."
 
Last edited:
^I saw the women in your avi about a month ago in the Dollar Tree. No lie.

The article is a good read to me because there is erroneous information going around that if you simply recreate someone else's ad lib then you'll be free from legal recourse. This obviously isn't the case. They mention Patent law as well as Trademark law which makes this issue even more complex than I had previously thought. I wonder if someone could be denied the Copyright on an adlib but could be awarded the Trademark and/or Patent rights, or vice versa?:hmmm: I'm going to keep researching this subject and contact a few industry blogs and ask them to do some well researched and cited write-ups. I'm very surprised at the minimal amount of information there is about this subject considering how popular ad libs are amongst up and coming producers.
 
Copyright, Trademark, and Patent are creative protections, but they apply in different situations. So, a trademark or servicemark presumes the copyright inherently. Does that make sense? If not, I will try to explain it differently, but the gist is that they are "all the same, but all different." To Wit:

Trademark-- Applies to a business logo, catchphrase or slogan, or combination thereof that represents a business of some kind that has products or commodities for sale (goods).

Servicemark-- Basically the same as a trademark, but for businesses that deal in services, rather than goods or product.

Patent-- A protection for an invention (mechanical/physical realm) of some kind.

Patent Pending (Pat. Pend.)-- A patent that is in-process or has been applied for, but not granted yet, thus "pending."

Copyright-- A protection for any idea or creative/intellectual property that has been put in a physical form, but applied to "non-inventions" (so, more or less artwork of some kind-- visual arts, photography, creative writing, film/video productions, sound recordings, music, broadcasts, etc. etc.).

All (save Copyright) must be applied for with a specific legal process that usually involves attorneys; copyright on the other hand is for any creative idea (non-invention) that is taken out of your head and put into a fixed form. It is an automatic "given," but it is still best for a number of reasons to register your copyright. In the U.S., with the Library of Congress.

I hope that clears things up. I am not an attorney, and this should not be construed as "legal advice."

GJ
 
Last edited:
Back
Top