That a happy face can cause such rancor should be no surprise

This story in the New York Times raised a giggle this afternoon.

Apparently, Walmart and the company that holds the (almost) worldwide patent on the use of the smiley face we all love to hate so much are in a bit of a legal tussel.

The French company, owned by Franklin Loufrani, makes tons of cash from charging licencing fees to companies wanting to use the ubiquitos image on their products all over the world. The stumbling block is that they don’t have a trade mark on the image in the US.

Things are getting nasty with Walmart accusing Loufrani of being a “trademark troll” registering the symbol in as many product categories as possible.

"They are applying for rights over the smiley face in product categories that include animal semen," John Simley, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said. "It shows they are trying to trademark everything they possibly can."

My favourite thing is that the Walmart spokesperson’s name is Simley – sooo close to smiley.

Simley obviously feels that his (massive and rather hideous) company have been wrongly slighted by the law suit and that they only have the best of intentions for the poor smiley face:

"We don't want to be precluded from using the smiley face anywhere we do business," Mr. Simley, the Wal-Mart spokesman, said. "We feel an obligation to defend the smiley face."

Wow! Who knew Walmart felt an obligation to anything. Still, if you are going to have obligations to something, best to pick the smiley face over your staff and the environment.

But the best part of the article is yet to come:

For his part, Nicolas Loufrani said that if SmileyWorld won, he would not license the face back to Wal-Mart. "We want to aim our brand more upmarket."

Umm, I’m not sure whether I should say this, but, the smiley face, upmarket? Maybe I’m a snob, but really?