3 ms·
> They've likely trademarked OmegaMart as the brand, instead of trademarking similar names to the brands they are parodying for each product. If that's the case
by nordsieck 3y ago
> They've likely trademarked OmegaMart as the brand, instead of trademarking similar names to the brands they are parodying for each product. If that's the case, they will be in the clear.
I took a look at the OmegaMart store, and I'd agree with you in this instance.
But in general, I don't think that just using a distinct brand is enough - it's all about probable customer confusion, which is really something that determined on a case-by-case basis.
- alexb_ 3y ago> I don't think that just using a distinct brand is enough - it's all about probable customer confusion The entire point of this ruling was to say that using a distinct brand can be enough. Customers were not confused between a dog toy and a bottle of Jack Daniels. The issue Jack Daniels had was its distinct brand being used to sell something else.
- simiones 3y agoThe point of this ruling is that you can't use the parody protection for your own trademark. If you have a trademark of your own and include a parody of someone else's trademark on your items, then the parody test would apply. For example, if the dog toys had been coming in boxes that proeminently featured the toymakers' logo, then they could have probably applied the parody standard and not have to discuss customer confusion at all.