This raises some interesting intellectual property issues.  When I read the headline, I was hoping that it wasn’t Spongebob’s creator/licensor/owner that caused the cemetery to go back on their prior approval.  Instead, it was the cemetery itself that had a change of heart.

Technically, this gravestone could infringe both copyright and trademark rights.  But, as the brand/copyright owner, this one would probably be best left alone.  I can’t imagine that a black market of cartoon character grave markers will spring up if this “infringement” is left unchecked…

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/us/spongebob-gravestone-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

 

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/starbucks-jam-over-duffingate-8C11361420

The real irony here is that “duffin” is a weak trademark based on descriptiveness, and somebody other than the parties listed in the above article has already received a U.S. registration (on the Supplemental Register) for “DUFFIN.”  (Even more ironic is that the DUFFIN registration is on the Supplemental Register not because the Examining Attorney picked up on the “doughnut + muffin = duffin” descriptiveness, but because “Duffin” is apparently a rare surname, thus it went on the Supplemental Register.)