Carni K sent in an interesting story about Kellogg’s, the cereal company. Kellogg’s is suing the Maya Archaeology Institute (MAI), a non-profit Guatemalan organization aimed at protecting the local history, culture, and natural environment. Why? It uses a toucan in its logo.
For those of you who did not spend your youth eating highly sugared empty carbohydrates for breakfast, the toucan (specifically, Toucan Sam) is the mascot of Kellogg’s Froot Loops. The toucan is also a large-billed colorful bird indigenous to Central and South America, the Caribbean, and southern Florida.
While this sort of cultural cannibalism is certainly common in American culture, it is a bold move nonetheless for Kellogg’s to not only appropriate the toucan, but to claim that no one else has a right to represent the toucan. Dr. Francisco Estrada-Belli puts it this way: “This is a bit like the Washington Redskins claiming trademark infringement against the National Congress of American Indians.”
And therein lies the problem: who is allowed to claim the symbolic use of this bird—an indigenous Guatemalan organization or a company that makes cereal and other convenience foods marketed to children and families?
To me, this brings up another question: what gives any of us the right to use the toucan at all? While cultural representations of animals may not directly harm animals, and have been central in human cultures for tens of thousands of years, they can contribute to a particular perception of those same animals. And animal advocates know that perception then shapes treatment. If we perceive an animal to be dumb or trivial, for example, then that animal may not seem worthy of our concern.
Many types of toucans, for example, are endangered. Of the more than 40 species making up their family, 35 are included on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list, meaning that they are either endangered, threatened, or otherwise subject to concern. Their troubled status comes not from people hunting or eating them, but from the increasing levels of habitat destruction in the tropical regions in which they live… which brings us back to the Maya Archaeology Institute.
The organization’s mission includes protecting Guatemala’s rainforests, including the animals and plants that live there. Kellogg’s, on the other hand, has made the toucan into a funny bird whose large nose lets him sniff out Froot Loops wherever they are hiding.
Who should have the right to represent the toucan? Anyone?
——————————
Margo DeMello has a PhD in cultural anthropology and teaches anthropology, cultural studies, and sociology at Central New Mexico Community College. Her research areas include body modification and adornment and human-animal studies.
If you would like to write a post for Sociological Images, please see our Guidelines for Guest Bloggers.
Comments 37
Yrro Simyarin — September 19, 2011
Maybe the toucans can hire a lawyer and sue for the uncompensated use of their image. Also, Prudential should desist in using the Rock of Gibraltar as its logo, at least until it pays for any and all ecological damage from the additional tourism.
That said, this lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous, and any decent judge should throw it out immediately. The two trademarks have nothing in common save that they use a toucan.
Leanneschwartz — September 19, 2011
You can't have all the birds! (sorry the bloggess is right by socimg in my reader).
This is probably bc if you don't vigorously defend your copyright you forfeit it, but still. Jeez. Not that I like kellogs anyway, but that is low.
aracari1 — September 19, 2011
It's not a nose, it's a beak. Second of all, toucans do not identify their food by sense of smell. They use their keen eyesight and highly developed tastebuds to sort out edible foods. They are also intelligent, affectionate birds if raised in captivity from hatching.
Marcos Faria — September 19, 2011
Brazilian largest conservative party adopts the toucan as its symbol (https://www2.psdb.org.br/). I wonder if Kellogg's is going to sue them as well.
Ms. Sunlight — September 19, 2011
This is not only absurd but obnoxious.
Do a Google image search for "toucan logo" - literally dozens of logos will come up for companies, events, places and organisations featuring a toucan. So, when it comes to defending the trademark, that bird has flown.
To take action like this against a nonprofit is just not good business sense. It's bad publicity to flex your corporate muscles in this way. Let's hope an apology comes soon.
Andrew — September 19, 2011
To me, this brings up another question: what gives any of us the right to use the toucan at all? While cultural representations of animals may not directly harm animals, and have been central in human cultures for tens of thousands of years, they can contribute to a particular perception of those same animals. And animal advocates know that perception then shapes treatment. If we perceive an animal to be dumb or trivial, for example, then that animal may not seem worthy of our concern.
This is an amusing way to look at it, but the question of who has the "right" to use the toucan really has nothing to do with the concerns that follow. If a hypothetical lobby of toucan advocates were to somehow achieve a ban on toucan imagery, it would set a precedent that would have to be applied equally to producing images of all living things and environmental features. The extremely questionable link between the image and the survival of an animal species is every bit as absurd as Kellog's insistence on "owning" the toucan.
The more boring but rational shape to that question would probably be - "what gives any of us the right to trademark a toucan?" Lawsuits like these are more common than a lot of people realize, in trademark as well as copyright claims (many of your favorite pop songs or movies are thinly disguised imitations of the work of someone obscure and uncredited who can't afford a hardass attorney, though there have been great videos of celebrities singing their hits on the witness stand in their defense). This case is more twisted, though - a ruling in Kellog's favor would basically mean that only one entity has the right to depict 40 species of wildlife, which is about as close to ownership of that wildlife as you can get without putting a fence around its habitat.
Or chopping it down, as it were.
Still, when it comes to that other point - about how cartoonifed animals shape perception - I think the silly mascots probably benefit the species they depict TOO much, if anything. It's terribly easy to raise public awareness (and funds) for species that are widely regarded as familiar and cute, but delicate ecosystems depend much more heavily on species that aren't so lovable. They can be devastated by the proliferation of "cute" creatures (e.g. possums in New Zealand) or by the decline of organisms we prefer not to think about (bacteria, insects, etc). The Maya organization is surely quite aware of this, but also of the fact that less ecologically-minded people respond more readily to cute flashy icons than to coherent information.
For the exact same reason, parents keep feeding their kids Froot Loops.
Amanda — September 19, 2011
The lawsuit is probably a function of the way trademark law works. It includes the idea that the consumer is an idiot, so when there are similar logos or company names or other trademarked things out there, a trademark owner MUST sue, or they may be assumed to have abandoned their trademark.
*This is not legal advice.
Fernando — September 19, 2011
"what gives any of us the right to use the toucan at all?"
I think that's some dangerous thinking, bringing up the idea that people may not have the right to express themselves. One thing is to raise criticism, which is perfectly fine, the other is bringing up the word "right" to this kind of discussion. Saying what rights we have or don't when it comes to expressing ourselves should be done very carefully and I don't think that proposing we shouldn't use toucans at all was being careful. It is about as bad as the idea of trademarking toucans.
Casey — September 19, 2011
No one should have the right to any of their creations. Art shouldn't be an occupation one can support oneself on.
*the obvious implication of this*
Sarah — September 19, 2011
Oh IP litigation. You are ever an unending font of evil.
S_Morlowe — September 19, 2011
Just as a commentary on the cultural context of the advertising logos...
I found this pretty funny because, as an Irish citizen, I've never heard of Toucan Sam: the toucan reminds me instantly of Guinness! Something I'm sure many other Irish people would say: as the saying went, If Toucan can, then you can too! I'm guessing this isn't an advertising campaign that Guinness used abroad? It's strange, because it's their longest-running.
Disgusted — September 19, 2011
Wow, what a stupid lawsuit. The two logos are not even similar. Stupid Kelloggs. What next, suing people dressed like pirates because they look like Captain Crunch?
TheD — September 20, 2011
This is downright idiotic. Toucan Sam is a CARTOON toucan and the other is a representationally drawn (if stylized) toucan.
This would be like Disney suing an exterminator company for using a representationally drawn vector image of a mouse.
Anonymous — September 20, 2011
Everyone has the right to use an image of a toucan, or of toucanness, or of anything from the natural world. The limitation of this is that nobody may use another person's image without their consent; I think it's perfectly clear here that these two images are as different from each other as The Red Badge of Courage is different from Gone With the Wind, despite the fact that they share the same source material.
If Kellogg’s can claim trademark rights over the toucan, and not just Toucan Sam, can TSR or Wizards of the Coast claim trademark or copyright rights over swords and elves, and not just the Holy Avenger and Drizzt Do'urden? Does Disney actually hold the rights to the concept of princesses?
The moral right to use a (unique) image is not really up for debate.
[links] Link salad is even more ragged | jlake.com — September 20, 2011
[...] Capitalism, Animals, and the Ownership of Icons — This may be perfectly well within the law, but it’s also nuts. [...]
Capitalism, Animals, and the Ownership of Icons ? Sociological … « shizukoreinhol — September 21, 2011
[...] Source: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/09/19/capitalism-animals-and-the-ownership-of-icons/ [...]
Toucan Sam « From the 6-4-0 — September 23, 2011
[...] This is an interesting story I came across yesterday about Kellogg’s suing the Maya Archeological Institute (MAI) over use of a toucan in their logo. Kellogg’s claims that they are the only company with the rights to use a toucan. I think this article brings up an intersting idea about the power and use of symbols discussed a couple of weeks ago in James Carey’s article “A Cultural Approach to Communication”. Kellogg’s knows the power of symbolism, which is very much akin to “branding” in advertising and marketing. I’m sure that most Americans instantly associate the toucan with the Toucan Sam of our childhood in commercials like this: [...]
Consider Magazine » Blog Archive » Endpoint — September 23, 2011
[...] 5. Can people own representations of animals? [...]
toucan sam. « showwlinn — October 12, 2011
[...] Capitalism, Animals, & the ownership of Icons – Sociological Images (Link) [...]
Andrew — March 28, 2014
UPDATE: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23061916835/kellogg-settles-toucan-trademark-dispute-with-mayan-archaeology-group.shtml
Battle Creek-based Kellogg Co. is satisfied that its trademarked Toucan Sam character isn't in danger, and the San Ramon, Calif.-based Maya Archaeology Initiative can keep using its own toucan logo. What's more, Kellogg is making a $100,000 contribution to cover a major part of the cost of building the MAI's long-planned Maya cultural center in Petén, a district in Guatemala, said MAI spokesperson Sam Haswell.