Put a clip on YouTube ... Nek Minnit someone stole my IP
31.12.69
The overcharge has now had millions of hits and the phrase has become part of the vernacular.
The phrase's acclaim is evidenced by the fact that definitions can be found on urbandictionary.com.
And the media are also taking service better of the phrase.
News site Stuff.co.nz has recently included the saying in the headline of an unrelated news story about a driver who passed her driving exam and 15 minutes later got stopped by police for speeding ("Got my credentials ... nek minnit, speeding ticket"), and the collocation has even been used by politicians and talk show hosts.
Levi is now famous.
However, with all this trendiness it was, perhaps, inevitable that someone would take advantage of Levi and his new-found fame.
Supre, the Australian the rage retail chain, has recently been the subject of public criticism for selling a t-shirt demeanour the words nek minnit, without acknowledging Levi (financially or otherwise) or his connection to the manifest interest in the phrase.
But did they need to? Does, or indeed, can, anyone own the rights to the phrase "nek minnit" and its another spellings (for example, "negg minute" and "nek summary")?
This particular situation highlights the power of the internet to design a brand even where there may have been no real intention to do so.
It is not clear why the video clip was made or even why it was uploaded to YouTube.
Although Levi has admitted he did not conceive the phrase, he certainly brought it to the attention of the world, or at the very least, made it popular.
So can he own it? Can it be "his" variety?
If the words were already in use by the public albeit in a limited manner, the real problem is whether the public, on seeing the phrase, would associate its use with Levi.
From what we have seen, I think about there is a strong argument they would. Certainly, at least a substantial portion of the public would, and that is all that is needed.
Source: National Business Review