4 ms·

Isn't Uber a German word meaning "over". Can you trademark a valid word?

Hydraulix989 6y ago
There's precedents everywhere for this, as long as the wording meets the actual requirements listed in trademark law. In the past, unscrupulous people would prey on unintentional confusion by naming their upstart businesses similar to established competitors, for example. There was also rampant counterfeiting. You can still see this today in jurisdictions without strong trademark laws. This is what trademark law originally aimed to protect us consumers from. Personally, I am happy with doing my own due diligence (let the buyer beware) rather than enacting regulatory laws subject to abuse by heavy-hitters, like in this example. This, of course, is my own personal opinion.
- LorenPechtel 6y ago
  I have no problem with trademark law being used against companies trying to pretend to be the big guy. But who would think "UberCheats" is something by "Uber"?? I see no possible confusion and that's the whole point of trademark law.
  - Hydraulix989 6y ago
    Yes, but how do you draw the line in a way that prevents one bad actor to claim they are in your latter safe bucket of soft-infringement? Without any stringent way of codifying it, there will only be inconsistent enforcement, and there will be people who manage to slip through the cracks. Uber has an UberEats already, maybe someone could think UberCheats are cheat codes or deals for UberEats? There is definitely room for confusion...
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      The problem is that something like “are people confused” isn’t something that can be codified in the law. Try to codify an algorithm and people will game it. As such, the only solution is a judge.
phaer 6y ago
"über" is, but "ü" and "u" are two different letters (with different pronunciation) in German. (don't know about trademark law, but do speak German)
- esrauch 6y ago
  I actually found it fascinating that in German speaking countries they actually pronounce it as "u" not a "ü" (more like "you-ber"), when as an American it seems clear to me that it's intended to be Über and just didn't write the umlaut.
  - jonp888 6y ago
    German has fixed pronunciation rules, there is no through/trough/tough/thought confusion. Of course for some foreign words you have to make an exception. However, Uber has a pretty minimal presence in Germany, so I doubt many people know how it is 'supposed' to be pronounced.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      I’d call it fixed spelling rules rather than pronunciation rules, since the language predates writing it down.
      - cycomanic 6y ago
        Let's agree and call it a 1 to 1 mapping.
    - Fnoord 6y ago
      When I learned German on high school, it was allowed to replace umlaut. For example, instead of über, you could say ueber. Ie. effectively replacing the umlaut with its vanilla/plain vowel variant plus an e. You can do the same with ß by replacing it with two s (mind to write it like). Tho I'm not sure its correct German in all German-speaking regions I found Germans would understand me. It being useful as my keyboard layout wasn't qwertz or equiv.
veesahni 6y ago
"Apple" is a registered trademark.
tsimionescu 6y ago
> Can you trademark a valid word? Yes, absolutely. You can trademark almost anything (including logo colors or patterns), but the protections offered by trademark law are relatively narrow (or supposed to be). For example, for a long time there were two major companies named Apple: the computer company making the Macinthosh, and the recording studio founded by the Beatles. Since they were operating in completely different markets (computers vs music distribution) they both were able to keep their respective trademarks; but either could have easily blocked a new company called Apple in their own market.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  The irony is that when apple moved into music they won the court case that they could not because of apple studios, they also got away with making the iphone, while their existed the cisco (?) iphone. On the other hand apple goes after any little shop with a logo that looks remotely like a stylized fruit. I guess it's more about how big you are, not how right.
  - alex_young 6y ago
    Didn't they pay the owner off for all of these infringements? I seem to remember that being the case...
- jolmg 6y ago
  Another example is Dove the soap brand and Dove the chocolate brand. Both are currently co-existing.
jabroni_salad 6y ago
See also: Why Skydrive got renamed to OneDrive https://www.theregister.com/2014/01/27/microsoft_skydrive_renamed_onedrive/ https://www.theregister.com/2014/01/27/microsoft_skydrive_re...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chrismcb 6y ago
Yes. But generally not in the area it is for. For example Microsoft had a trademark for windows. But you can still use the word windows for glass windows, just not software

There's precedents everywhere for this, as long as the wording meets the actual requirements listed in trademark law. In the past, unscrupulous people would prey on unintentional confusion by naming their upstart businesses similar to established competitors, for example. There was also rampant counterfeiting. You can still see this today in jurisdictions without strong trademark laws. This is what trademark law originally aimed to protect us consumers from. Personally, I am happy with doing my own due diligence (let the buyer beware) rather than enacting regulatory laws subject to abuse by heavy-hitters, like in this example. This, of course, is my own personal opinion.

LorenPechtel 6y ago
I have no problem with trademark law being used against companies trying to pretend to be the big guy. But who would think "UberCheats" is something by "Uber"?? I see no possible confusion and that's the whole point of trademark law.
- Hydraulix989 6y ago
  Yes, but how do you draw the line in a way that prevents one bad actor to claim they are in your latter safe bucket of soft-infringement? Without any stringent way of codifying it, there will only be inconsistent enforcement, and there will be people who manage to slip through the cracks. Uber has an UberEats already, maybe someone could think UberCheats are cheat codes or deals for UberEats? There is definitely room for confusion...
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    The problem is that something like “are people confused” isn’t something that can be codified in the law. Try to codify an algorithm and people will game it. As such, the only solution is a judge.

phaer 6y ago

"über" is, but "ü" and "u" are two different letters (with different pronunciation) in German. (don't know about trademark law, but do speak German)

esrauch 6y ago
I actually found it fascinating that in German speaking countries they actually pronounce it as "u" not a "ü" (more like "you-ber"), when as an American it seems clear to me that it's intended to be Über and just didn't write the umlaut.
- jonp888 6y ago
  German has fixed pronunciation rules, there is no through/trough/tough/thought confusion. Of course for some foreign words you have to make an exception. However, Uber has a pretty minimal presence in Germany, so I doubt many people know how it is 'supposed' to be pronounced.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I’d call it fixed spelling rules rather than pronunciation rules, since the language predates writing it down.
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      Let's agree and call it a 1 to 1 mapping.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    When I learned German on high school, it was allowed to replace umlaut. For example, instead of über, you could say ueber. Ie. effectively replacing the umlaut with its vanilla/plain vowel variant plus an e. You can do the same with ß by replacing it with two s (mind to write it like). Tho I'm not sure its correct German in all German-speaking regions I found Germans would understand me. It being useful as my keyboard layout wasn't qwertz or equiv.

veesahni 6y ago

"Apple" is a registered trademark.

tsimionescu 6y ago

> Can you trademark a valid word? Yes, absolutely. You can trademark almost anything (including logo colors or patterns), but the protections offered by trademark law are relatively narrow (or supposed to be). For example, for a long time there were two major companies named Apple: the computer company making the Macinthosh, and the recording studio founded by the Beatles. Since they were operating in completely different markets (computers vs music distribution) they both were able to keep their respective trademarks; but either could have easily blocked a new company called Apple in their own market.

cycomanic 6y ago
The irony is that when apple moved into music they won the court case that they could not because of apple studios, they also got away with making the iphone, while their existed the cisco (?) iphone. On the other hand apple goes after any little shop with a logo that looks remotely like a stylized fruit. I guess it's more about how big you are, not how right.
- alex_young 6y ago
  Didn't they pay the owner off for all of these infringements? I seem to remember that being the case...
jolmg 6y ago
Another example is Dove the soap brand and Dove the chocolate brand. Both are currently co-existing.

jabroni_salad 6y ago

See also: Why Skydrive got renamed to OneDrive https://www.theregister.com/2014/01/27/microsoft_skydrive_renamed_onedrive/ https://www.theregister.com/2014/01/27/microsoft_skydrive_re...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chrismcb 6y ago

Yes. But generally not in the area it is for. For example Microsoft had a trademark for windows. But you can still use the word windows for glass windows, just not software