Cornering smiles market
Does Eat ‘n Park hold the market on smiles? The Pittsburgh-based restaurant chain filed a federal lawsuit last week claiming that the Silver Lake Cookie Co. of Islip, N.Y., is infringing on its trademark. Silver Lake has dared to market smiley face cookies. Eat ‘n Park claims it obtained a trademark in 1993 for the smiley cookies. Silver Lake claims it has sold that cookie for 20 to 25 years but only recently was it brought to Eat ‘n Park’s notice when Sliver Lake began offering it online in February.
The Eat ‘n Park case will add to the growing field of trademark law. Currently the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether trademark protection can be extended to Disney for dear old Mickey Mouse and whether a sex-toy shop called Victor’s Little Secret infringed upon the trademark of nationally known women’s lingerie peddler, Victoria’s Secret.
Laws protecting the inventions, writings and creations of individuals and corporations are necessary. But how far should trademark rights infringe upon the commonplace?
Smiley faces weren’t invented by Eat ‘n Park. The 1970s were plastered with peace signs and smiley faces.
Even the Mr. Yuk stickers that denote poison and teach children to stay away from danger is a take-off on old smiley by turning that smile downside up into a frown.
Eat ‘n Park was successful in turning the smile into a commercial venture, calling its restaurants “the place for smiles,” and gaining government approval for the exclusive rights to peddle smiles, at least when they are drawn on cookies.
Somehow life seemed simpler when smiles were supposed to be contagious. That smiley faces of old were commonplace and prolific was part of the charm that contributed to the feel-good nature of the simple design. That smiles would multiply through sharing now seems such an idealistic notion. These days smiles need protected by lawyers and judges.