🎭 The Visual Trap
The Hollywood Sign is a landmark that physically spells out the word "HOLLYWOOD."
This creates a unique confusion: people see the Sign and think trademark rights to the word "HOLLYWOOD" must automatically include rights to the landmark structure that spells that word.
It's almost intuitive. It is also legally wrong.
⚖️ The Legal Reality
Owning trademark rights to print the word "HOLLYWOOD" on T-shirts is completely different from owning the rights to photograph the City's most defining and visible landmark that happens to spell the same word.
Trademark law protects words when used in commerce to brand products. It does not give ownership over photographs of real-world structures—even when those structures spell out trademarked words.
Understanding the Three Separate Things
🏛️ THE LANDMARK
- A structure in Griffith Park
- Owned by City of Los Angeles
- Can be filmed and photographed freely
- It's a place, not a product
🏷️ THE WORDMARK
- Stylized word "HOLLYWOOD"
- Registered for T-shirts, candy, jewelry
- Protects against counterfeit merchandise
- It's a brand for products
❌ WHAT DOESN'T EXIST
- No trademark for "depictions of the Sign"
- No trade dress for the Sign's appearance
- No right to license photos of the landmark
- USPTO rejected this in 2004
The Statue of Liberty Example: Imagine if someone trademarked the word "LIBERTY" for clothing and souvenirs. That wouldn't give them rights over photographs of the Statue of Liberty—even though the statue represents liberty and is covered in inscriptions. You could freely film it, photograph it, and show it in movies. What you couldn't do is print "LIBERTY" on your own competing T-shirts.
The Coca-Cola Building Example: Coca-Cola has trademark rights to their name and logo. If they owned a building with "COCA-COLA" written on it in giant letters, you could photograph that building, show it in films about Atlanta, and sell those photos as art. What you couldn't do is print "Coca-Cola" on your own soda cans. The Chamber is doing the same thing—they own the word for merchandise, not images of the structure.
There's a massive difference between USING the word "HOLLYWOOD" to brand your products (trademark violation) and DEPICTING a landmark that spells "HOLLYWOOD" (not trademark use at all)
The Chamber's Sleight of Hand
What they do:
- Register a word trademark for merchandise categories
- Send cease-and-desist letters about photographs and film depictions
- Count on people not understanding these are completely different things
Why it works:
The Sign IS the word made physical. People think: "They own the word, the Sign IS the word, so they must own images of the Sign." This confusion is understandable but legally incorrect.
📋 The Smoking Gun Evidence
If the Chamber really owned rights to images of the Sign, why did:
- The USPTO reject their 2004 application to register the Sign itself?
- Five major studios (Paramount, CBS, Fox, Columbia, Universal) file oppositions to that application?
- The Chamber abandon the application rather than fight those studios?
- Their own lawyer tell the USPTO the mark is "not a depiction of the Hollywood Sign" to get approval?
- They have zero U.S. federal court victories enforcing these claims?
Real-World Example: The Difference
You CAN freely:
- Film the Hollywood Sign in your movie to show the setting is Los Angeles
- Photograph the Sign for a travel documentary
- Show the Sign in a video game set in Hollywood
- Include it in artwork depicting Los Angeles
You CANNOT:
- Print "HOLLYWOOD" on your own branded T-shirts to compete with the Chamber's merchandise
- Use the stylized "HOLLYWOOD" wordmark to brand your products
- Create confusion that your jewelry/candy/souvenirs are officially licensed by the Chamber
The first list is about depicting reality. The second is about commercial trademark use. These are fundamentally different under the law.
When you show the Hollywood Sign in a film, you're not using "HOLLYWOOD" as a brand for your film—you're depicting a real landmark. That's why movies can show McDonald's restaurants, Nike shoes, and Coca-Cola cans without permission. They're depicting reality, not branding their film with those marks.
The Bottom Line
The Hollywood Sign is a City-owned landmark that happens to spell a word.
The Chamber owns trademark rights to print that word in a way that happens to look like a landmark.
These are the opposite things, not the same. Understand this so you don't get a shake-down.
The USPTO confirmed this. Major studios confirmed this.
The Chamber's own words and prosecution history confirm this.
Don't let the visual coincidence confuse you about the legal reality.