Are we smiling yet?

Is there any symbol more ubiquitous, more engraved into the very fabric of the collective consciousness, than the simple smiley face? For people of my generation, it has simply been around forever. It adorns t-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers and a seemingly infinite array of other merchandise. Variations of the smiley face (or "smiley") run rampant throughout the Internet, whether it be on message boards, in e-mails, or what have you. It is, in short, everywhere.

Among the many, many companies that have incorporated the smiley face into their advertising and logos is mega retailer Wal-Mart. But surely they know that they can't actually claim any sort of ownership to the symbol, right? I mean, it's not like their version of the smiley face is even particularly different from every other version out there.

And yet, according to a recent article in the Contra Costa Times, this is exactly what Wal-Mart is attempting to do. They claim their lawsuit is in response to a French gentleman who claims to have invented the symbol back in 1968 and who has supposedly gotten a trademark on the symbol in numerous countries outside of the U.S. I'm not sure how valid a claim this gentleman has (I always thought the smiley face was invented by a Massachusetts graphic artist back in 1963), but if anybody has a valid claim of ownership it sure as heck isn't Wal-Mart. The whole point of having a logo is to distinguish yourself from the competition. That's why logo trademarks are protected so fiercely by corporations in the first place. But you just don't select the world's most common symbol, call it your logo, and expect anybody to respect your "exclusive rights" to use that logo.