The Republican Party has stopped advertising and selling “Deport Depot” merchandise that bears resemblance to Home Depot’s logo. While the promotional products brought some quick attention to Florida’s immigration detention center, the administration seemed to have been playing fast and loose with trademark policy, caving quickly when the retail giant voiced concern.
- The “Deportation Depot” is the newest highly publicized detention center in Florida intended to house individuals with immigration violations.
- In an effort to bring attention to this new venture, the GOP sold and advertised T-shirts, mugs, hats and other promo products that read “Deport Depot” using Home Depot’s orange branding and signature font.
Beth Marlowe, a spokesperson for Home Depot, told the Tampa Bay Times that the company had not given the Republican Party any approval to use its branding or logo.
“We have reached out to the [Republican Party of Florida] to try to resolve this issue,” Marlowe told the Times in an email.
Beth Marlowe
Spokesperson, Home Depot
Within three days of Marlowe’s comments, the products were removed from social media and no longer available for purchase. The administration has also sold branded merch (as have secondary markets) for another immigration center in Florida known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”
RELATED: “Etsy Receives Backlash For ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Merch“
Promo Perspective
It appears that Home Depot had to only raise the appearance of potential objections to the merchandise for someone associated with the Republican Party to determine it wise to remove products rather than face trademark lawsuits.
Protecting intellectual property is a major concern for the promo industry, which is fueled by creativity and innovation.
- Those protections enable customers to know what they can expect, ultimately building brand loyalty.
- Trademarks, copyrights and patents are designed to distinguish one’s products or services from another’s.
Earlier this year, Columbia Sportswear sued Columbia University over alleged trademark infringement and breach of contract, claiming that the university’s branded merchandise looks “confusingly similar.” A similar lawsuit was filed earlier this year when Stanley Black & Decker accused Pacific Market International, parent company of Stanley drinkware, of confusing consumers in the marketplace and damaging Stanley Black & Decker’s reputation in the process.
ICYMI: L.L.Bean Drops Lawsuit Against 4imprint
Although the need to protect IP isn’t called into play until someone infringes on it, suppliers, distributors, decorators and business service providers should keep an eye on the market to remain vigilant. For example, suppliers are urged to file a patent application before public disclosure.
If you wait to file, you may waive your rights or limit the remedies,” said Justin Miller, Esq., a patent attorney with Larson & Larson, at the 2019 PPAI Product Responsibility Summit.
- In a landmark legal victory for the promo industry in 2018, a federal court jury ruled in favor of ETS Express after the supplier was sued for alleged trademark infringement by Can’t Live Without It, LLC, dba S’well Bottle.
Conversely, you don’t want to infringe upon someone else’s IP when creating or designing products. When accepting an order, distributors should avoid the obvious such as Disney, Star Wars, Marvel characters and the like, as well as famous landmarks, slogans, logos, likenesses of celebrities and photos and art of unknown origin.
RELATED: New Ruling Could Make Design Patents Harder To Obtain
“Fair use laws remain extremely gray, and companies incorporating copyrighted assets into their work should be aware that the case-by-case and context-sensitive evaluation lends itself to much subjective speculation about how a court of law, i.e., a judge or a panel of judges, may apply an objective analysis in determining whether a use of a copyrighted work is fair and thus non-infringing,” wrote Halliburton in a 2023 commentary on the Copyright Act’s ‘fair use’ doctrine.
