Netflix had the because of the pandemic and the worldwide lockdown. The video streaming company added and saw a surge in viewing. For instance, Netflix’s “Tiger King” was watched by in the US alone in merely 10 days. “Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness” is a true-crime docuseries that debuted on March 20, 2020 and became a within the first 10 days of its release. Not only did it become a phenomenon among viewers, but it has also in March.
The series takes place in Oklahoma and follows the life of zookeeper Joe Exotic, as well as other interesting characters, such as Joe’s competitor and fellow zookeeper , the leader of a cult-like polyamorous group that staffs his zoo. The series brings to light a plethora of legal issues, including . Interestingly, the series involved several like the , and and against Joe Exotic. This article will explore Carole Baskin’s trademark suit against Joe Exotic in particular.
In 2011, Carole Baskin’s Big Cat Rescue filed alleging that Exotic infringed her trademark rights on her BIG CAT RESCUE logo. The purpose of trademarks is to of goods and services of the trademark holder to distinguish those goods and services from others in the marketplace. In her complaint, Carole Baskin had to demonstrate that Exotic’s similar trademark with her trademark. To prove this claim, she showed that she had a registered mark, and that Joe’s use of “Big Cat Rescue Entertainment” infringed her exclusive trademark rights. states that any person who use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion is liable for civil damages.
To determine trademark infringement and whether a exists, the respective marks are examined for their similarities and differences. Even if not identical, if the marks , then the marks may be deemed confusingly similar. In this case, “Big Cat Rescue Experience” to promote his zoo, as well as his show where he travelled with big cats and performed magic. Exotic only added the term “” to Baskin’s Big Cat Rescue to create his Big Cat Rescue Entertainment/Experience. Moreover, Exotic marketed the show by using an image that had a to Baskin’s logo for the Big Cat Rescue. Also, not only were Exotic’s services similar to those of Baskin’s (animal sanctuary/zoo), but Exotic’s use of the Florida phone number created an illusion that his business was as Baskin’s sanctuary. So, was likely to confuse consumers into thinking that his zoo had a connection or affiliation with Carole’s non-profit sanctuary.
The consumer confusion allowed Exotic to unlawfully benefit from the popularity of Baskin’s sanctuary by Consequently, and ordered Exotic to pay legal costs and damages to Carole’s Big Cat Rescue in the amount of $953,000. Recently, the , which was transferred to his mother in order to evade creditors, to be turned over to Baskin.
Written by Elif Babaoglu, who is a contributing IPilogue Editor and the Co-Director of Events of the Osgoode Privacy Law Society.