3 ms·
I don't think the two situations are analogous in any way. In the case you posted, the SFAA were looking to run a sporting event using the word 'Olympics'. This
by grabeh 14y ago
I don't think the two situations are analogous in any way. In the case you posted, the SFAA were looking to run a sporting event using the word 'Olympics'. This is clearly going to cause an element of confusion to the public in terms of who is organising the event.
On the other hand, in the case posted by the OP, the likelihood of confusion is to my mind, non-existent. No reasonable person would be confused into thinking the body responsible for holding the Olympics was branching out into gyros.
- larrys 14y agoOh I know they are in no way similar. I was just posting as further background to the issue.
- grabeh 14y agoApologies for the slightly over-assertive reply (and thanks for posting the link).
- jessriedel 14y agoAs pointed out by emarcotte, the claim is not that anyone would think that the Olympic committee was making gyros but that the gyro makers are benefitting off the Olympic trademark without paying sufficient money like Coke or McDonalds.
- grabeh 14y agoGood point. I can see more clearly the need to protect large corporate sponsors from actual competitors (e.g. Burger King, Pepsi) where there is likely to be a diversion of profits, but in this case, I am fairly certain that there will be no diversion of profits. I suppose it could also be argued that the usage is detrimental to the trade mark but that point is undermined by the approved association with fast food/sugary drinks.