"Vegan" is a trademark worth $500,000 per year. :-/ (ABLC video)

[NonZeroSum]

"Vegan" is a trademark worth $500,000 per year. :-/
https://youtu.be/KS9KEBhNGLA

Published on Jun 30, 2017
I was unaware that "vegan" is a trademark, and generating over half a million dollars per year for its owners.

-------

As I mentioned in a few videos recently, I am the sort of guy who reads annual financial reports from major vegan foundations and institutions because I'm trying to learn from their experience.

I'm trying to learn from what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong.

And I was surprised when I found in the pages of the Vegan Society’s Annual Report, they claim that the word vegan is their trademark.

Not only do they have the word trademarked, they are successfully using this trademark to generate quite a lot of money, you can see the exact amount of money in British pounds on screen, it works out to be more than half a million U.S. dollars per year.

That's a surprise, I think for anyone who conceives of veganism as a political movement, as an ideology, or even as a diet, you're shocked to find out that the word vegan is held as a trademark. If it's going to be held as a trademark, I'm happy to learn that the vegan society owns it as a trademark and it's not owned by some other for-profit company or entity or corporation, that'd be even stranger.

But nevertheless, I can't say I'm really comfortable with the idea of anyone having a trademark on the word vegan, I don't think anyone can be comfortable with seeing that there's a trademark on their own political ideology.

And I have over the years seen some products avoid using the word vegan, they use these other terms like plant-based, or they just have a whole other sentence on the package saying it “does not contain any animal products or any animal derived products.”

It never occurred to me that some of those products might be avoiding the use of the word ‘vegan,’ because it was trademarked or because there'd be an expectation for them to actually pay money to a foundation or agency, to be able to use the word.

Now I don't have any reason to think that the vegan society is abusing their power in holding this trademark, I'd be very interested even to know if anyone wants to email me if they've heard something or read something about what the implications of this are for companies who are using the word vegan.

I just feel that we already have too much of a problem, with individuals and political movements avoiding the word vegan. It'd be a much longer video if I got into that, but I've seen that, I've even seen formal political movements within Canada that said no, they didn't want to use the word vegan, that we're using these other complex terms about animal rights and ecology and what-have-you. And I really do like the simplicity and directness and honesty of the word vegan, I like its simplicity in a reference to a diet and ethics and ecology and as a political heading. I don't want to stop using the word vegan because someone, somewhere, holds a trademark, has the copyright, has the exclusive rights to determine what isn't vegan.

I felt as though this was a word that all of us owned, and all of us participated in and that all of us were working towards. You know starting out for ourselves with veganism met in our own lives and yeah it comes as a bit of a shock, it is fundamentally a little bit weird to find out that no, it's a trademark, even if it's the vegan society themselves they hold that trademark and that it's a trademark that is being milked for half a million dollars a year.

[NonZeroSum]

Someone's already pointed out that it might just be the logo, but it's an interesting subject, how do people feel about trademarks and ethical causes?

A philosopher I like trademarked their video series 'Think for a change'
- https://coriwong.com/my-philifesophy/

And I had a knee jerk reaction of distaste when I read it aha, though I'm sure they had perfectly valid reasons, of being a struggling writer trying to make a buck.

Apparently the words "animal liberation" are also trademarked, though I don't know what the use stipulates on any of these internationally. I'm for copy-left creative commons which basically means use and share liberally as long as no profit is being made unfairly claiming another's work.

[brimstoneSalad]

Someone's already pointed out that it might just be the logo, but it's an interesting subject, how do people feel about trademarks and ethical causes?

Yes, they only enforce it on the vegan society logo/certified vegan by the vegan society stuff.
They might be able to push for protection on the word by itself, but that would be more difficult. Not to say they shouldn't do it, just to preserve it.

A trademark can be used for good. EI'm for copy-left creative commons which basically means use and share liberally as long as no profit is being made unfairly claiming another's work.

Copyleft is based on asserting intellectual property rights, and then applying those requirements. The same could be done for "vegan", so that it becomes illegal (based on trademark infringement too, not just false advertising which would be a weaker claim) to call something vegan that is not vegan. They could even stop nazis from using the term if they wanted.

Vlog Brothers talked about DFTBA a little here and why they don't trademark and enforce it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaVy_QCa1RQ
It wouldn't be that difficult since you could set up something to give people permission, even an online form or something, but it would take some work.

[NonZeroSum]

. . .how do people feel about trademarks and ethical causes?

. . .
They might be able to push for protection on the word by itself, but that would be more difficult. Not to say they shouldn't do it, just to preserve it.

How would you feel about that? Do you think it's something people should think about when they start a group or write a new book, youtube series and want to protect the use of an ethical slogan.

I'm for copy-left creative commons which basically means use and share liberally as long as no profit is being made unfairly claiming another's work.

Copyleft is based on asserting intellectual property rights, and then applying those requirements. The same could be done for "vegan", so that it becomes illegal (based on trademark infringement too, not just false advertising which would be a weaker claim) to call something vegan that is not vegan. They could even stop nazis from using the term if they wanted.
. . .
It wouldn't be that difficult since you could set up something to give people permission, even an online form or something, but it would take some work.

Yes it's interesting because there's even strong and weak copyleft, I was talking about people using weak copylefts simply to ensure no one else makes profit on their writing, but that it stays free to distribute and share, so no one else can trademark it, almost an anti-copyright.


(btw think you mixed up something you were writing with my quote above - A trademark can be used for good. EI'm)

[brimstoneSalad]

How would you feel about that? Do you think it's something people should think about when they start a group or write a new book, youtube series and want to protect the use of an ethical slogan.

I would support it.
I think that would be too expensive to consider beforehand. They should wait until it becomes popular enough or useful enough to warrant it. Filing fees alone are many hundreds of dollars, and you could even need a lawyer.

Yes it's interesting because there's even strong and weak copyleft, I was talking about people using weak copylefts simply to ensure no one else makes profit on their writing, but that it stays free to distribute and share, so no one else can trademark it, almost an anti-copyright.

The trouble with prohibiting profit making is that can be harmful; what if somebody wants to make a derivative work and publish that?
*Some* profit is needed to engage in ventures like that, to make it worth the risk to the publisher.
Even youtube ads could be considered profit, and yet your video probably won't be recommended much unless it's monetized (youtube is not in the habit of promoting unmonetized content).

[NonZeroSum]

How would you feel about that? Do you think it's something people should think about when they start a group or write a new book, youtube series and want to protect the use of an ethical slogan.

I would support it.
I think that would be too expensive to consider beforehand. They should wait until it becomes popular enough or useful enough to warrant it. Filing fees alone are many hundreds of dollars, and you could even need a lawyer.

Fair enough, and you wouldn't have any concerns about it creating a climate of litigious fear around ethical slogans? Like the previously trademarked happy birthday tune, before it became fair use.

Yes it's interesting because there's even strong and weak copyleft, I was talking about people using weak copylefts simply to ensure no one else makes profit on their writing, but that it stays free to distribute and share, so no one else can trademark it, almost an anti-copyright.

The trouble with prohibiting profit making is that can be harmful; what if somebody wants to make a derivative work and publish that?
*Some* profit is needed to engage in ventures like that, to make it worth the risk to the publisher.

That person would have to make a good case to the original copyleft content creator, that's the great thing about it being able to be extended also. My only familiarity with it is literally self-published authors helping each each other go through the process of copylefting their work so that it can be used freely within the small writers community, without as John Green said having to follow up every case of copyright infringement up with a take-down notice, even ones you like.

Even youtube ads could be considered profit, and yet your video probably won't be recommended much unless it's monetized (youtube is not in the habit of promoting unmonetized content).

Yeah good advice, heard that from APV too.

[brimstoneSalad]

Fair enough, and you wouldn't have any concerns about it creating a climate of litigious fear around ethical slogans? Like the previously trademarked happy birthday tune, before it became fair use.

The law is what it is, I'm not saying that's without problems. But a good organization refusing to use it doesn't stop the bad ones.

[ModVegan]

Someone's already pointed out that it might just be the logo, but it's an interesting subject, how do people feel about trademarks and ethical causes?

A philosopher I like trademarked their video series 'Think for a change'
- https://coriwong.com/my-philifesophy/

And I had a knee jerk reaction of distaste when I read it aha, though I'm sure they had perfectly valid reasons, of being a struggling writer trying to make a buck.

Apparently the words "animal liberation" are also trademarked, though I don't know what the use stipulates on any of these internationally. I'm for copy-left creative commons which basically means use and share liberally as long as no profit is being made unfairly claiming another's work.

This is why I strongly support the idea of a vegan flag. I have nothing against the Vegan Society, but their vegan symbol is trademarked and so it can't be shared freely and used/copied/sold without their permission. That's fine, but vegans need a symbol that can be used and shared without trademark, and the vegan flag is a great alternative in that respect.http://www.veganflag.org

[brimstoneSalad]

This is why I strongly support the idea of a vegan flag.

It's a nice design. I like the circular logo.

I just worry that if something like that is totally open, it could be misused and there's no way to say anything against it. Like how Hitler appropriated the swastika; it's harmed its other uses in the west.
I don't think somebody advocating for carnism would use it, but an extremist group might and harm the image.

[ModVegan]

This is why I strongly support the idea of a vegan flag.

It's a nice design. I like the circular logo.

I just worry that if something like that is totally open, it could be misused and there's no way to say anything against it. Like how Hitler appropriated the swastika; it's harmed its other uses in the west.
I don't think somebody advocating for carnism would use it, but an extremist group might and harm the image.

That's always a risk with any open source design, but I think a little risk/benefit analysis is in order. The rainbow flag is obviously extremely easy to copy, but so far no nutty groups seem to have seen fit to appropriate it. I'd grant more credence to the risk if the KKK started using rainbows on their hoods. Unlikely. Of course, people we don't like might use our symbol, but they already do (there are plenty of white supremacist vegans out there).