Uncle Remus’ Suing Skooda Chose Over “Uncle Remus” Video?

Obviously unhappy with Skooda Chose’s portrayal of its namesake, legendary Chicago chicken spot, Uncle Remus, has hit Skooda with a cease and desist letter over Skooda’s new song and video with Co-Still, “Uncle Remus.”

The letter claims that Skooda uses an unauthorized reference to the restaurant and draws an unflattering comparison between the artist and the restaurant Uncle Remus. I guess the people at Uncle Remus didn’t like the Chosen One’s “bird” metaphors.

In the video, Skooda films in front of the Westside establishment with restaurant patrons and employees; which didn’t seem to be a problem at the time.

Hit the jump for the cease and desist letter Skooda was hit with. Do you think the suit is justified? Go here for the video, and head here for the Mp3.

Re: Infringement of Uncle Remus, Inc. Trademark

Dear Sir or Madam:

We represent Uncle Remus with respect to its intellectual property matters. Uncle Remus
owns several trademarks and service marks that are either registered or pending registration with the U.S. Trademark Office

It has recently come to our attention that your Youtube is broadcasting, streaming, showing and/or allowing to be performed (hereinafter “broadcast” or “broadcasting”) a video on the internet by Skooda Chose featuring Co-Still entitled “Uncle Remus” and a still photo called “Uncle Remus Flow”. The performance can be found using URL http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=oAb2OTocX3E and others as included in the email.

More specifically, the video makes an unauthorized reference and draws an unflattering comparison between the artist and the restaurant Uncle Remus. Please be advised that Youtube’s enablement of Skooda’s unauthorized broadcast of the video and still photo using Uncle Remus’ mark constitutes, among other things, trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and other causes of action under state and federal law.

In particular, the artist’s use of the mark in his video is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the video and/or the artist’s unauthorized recitations dilutes the distinctive quality of the mark.

[Click To Go To Next Page Below]

Pages: 1 2