Our
View: Wal-Mart feud with Frenchman
dumb
The controversial mega store Wal-Mart, known to many as either a benefactor to
the masses, bringing people cheap and necessary goods, or an unethical, socially
irresponsible corporation, may soon have another addition to its numerous identities:
The sole proprietor of the famous yellow
smiley face.
The super store is currently battling Franklin Loufrani, a Frenchman who has
secured trademarks for the smiley face around the globe since the ’70s
and, frankly, Wal-Mart has many other issues that need to be addressed before
pursuing an endeavor as frivolous as ownership of the famous icon.
The current course of action Wal-Mart is taking a quintessential example of corporate
greed: An enormous company trying to patent and own an image that embodies an
attitude seldom associated with big business and a visual cue for many that evokes
thoughts of the anti-establishment era of the ’70s.
Rather than focusing energy, time and money on obtaining a patent (and ultimately
making money off other businesses that would want to use the symbol), Wal-Mart
should be focusing its attention on the working conditions of its workers both
in the
United States and those who are manufacturing their goods abroad.
The few contributions Wal-Mart boasts on its Web site are a meager drop in the
proverbial bucket and certainly do not outweigh the harmful effects of its unethical
practices. Among the few socially conscious actions the super store applauds
itself on are the two “green stores” it started in Colorado and Texas
that incorporate environmentally conscious properties and use fewer natural resources.
Wal-Mart noticeably omits the fact that it owns 5,000 stores around the world
and makes the outrageous claim of saving working families money when in fact
it severely underpays its many workers. According to an article in the Sunday
edition of the Los Angeles Times, Wal-Mart spokesman John Smiley said the company
has invested billions of dollars in attempting to link its image with that of
the smiley face since 1996 when the company began using the image.
Rather than waste billions of dollars trying to get customers to associate Wal-Mart
with the smiley, Wal-Mart should ensure its employees are receiving adequate
living wages and are provided with essential needs such as health insurance.
Wal-Mart should use its financial clout to create positive change for its workers.
In doing so, Wal-Mart would most likely gain an enormous amount of support from
people currently boycotting the chain because of its morally questionable practices.
Aside from the financial impact of the lawsuit, it is also incredibly egotistical
for Wal-Mart executives to assume, or at least claim, people will associate the
image of a smiling face with that of the company.
The smiley face is a symbol that shouldn’t be owned for profit, but used
freely by whomever wishes to display it. By trying to own the rights to the image,
and therefore restricting other people from using it, the two petty parties involved
in this ridiculous battle are destroying the carefree silliness associated with
the symbol.
Although it may seem un-American or unpatriotic to say that some things shouldn’t
be capitalized on, there are some things that shouldn’t be used for profit.
The smiley face definitely qualifies as one of them.
|
