4 ms·

IANAL, but I know this issue. To protect an advertising slogan, the plaintiff must show that other uses of their slogan will confuse the public and materially i

by lutusp 13y ago

IANAL, but I know this issue. To protect an advertising slogan, the plaintiff must show that other uses of their slogan will confuse the public and materially injure the plaintiff's interests. For example, there was once a restaurant named "McDonald's", owned by someone named McDonald. The restaurant existed before there was a McDonald's chain of restaurants, and the restaurant name corresponded with the owner's name. Notwithstanding all that, the corporate giant McDonald's was able to force the owner of the restaurant to change the name on the ground that the original name would mislead the public. EDIT: I researched this further, and it turns out there have been several "McDonald's" restaurants that came to the attention of the corporate giant -- some legal actions succeeded, some failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases Defenses of everyday phrases like "It's the real thing" can only succeed if the plaintiff can show there is a real probability of public confusion or injury to commerce or reputation -- it's not enough to say that the phrase is in wide use. A counterexample is Apple Computer and Apple Music (the latter owned by the Beatles). In this case it was decided that, because they were in different businesses, there was no great likelihood of public confusion.

zokier 13y ago
> In this case it was decided that, because they were in different businesses, there was no great likelihood of public confusion Until iTunes was released.
- krallja 13y ago
  iPod (2001) came out before iTunes. The original Macintosh (1984) had very powerful sound hardware for the time.
drcube 13y ago
> A counterexample is Apple Computer and Apple Music (the latter owned by the Beatles). In this case it was decided that, because they were in different businesses, there was no great likelihood of public confusion. That's a bad example because Apple Computer eventually did enter the music business, with itunes, contrary to an earlier court's ruling that they stay out of that industry. I think they ended up just paying Apple Music a ton of money. So that's basically a case of infringing trademark, but having enough money to pay off the company whose mark you're infringing. As we all know, enough money solves any problem.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > That's a bad example because Apple Computer eventually did enter the music business, with itunes, contrary to an earlier court's ruling that they stay out of that industry. I would argue that that makes it a good example -- they eventually crossed the line and the issue had to be revisited. BTW thanks for posting and correcting the example. > I think they ended up just paying Apple Music a ton of money. That makes it a perfect example -- originally there was no issue or conflict, but eventually the two entities collided. > As we all know, enough money solves any problem. So it seems. I think it's a perfect example of how these things sort themselves out, because over time, it visited both extremes -- not an issue, then very much an issue.
  - drcube 13y ago
    You're right, maybe that does make it a good example. No criticism intended. This wasn't a one time thing, by the way. There were a whole bunch of suits between the two companies over the years, I think starting way back in the 70s. It's interesting how Apple Music was initially the big company in the dispute, and Apple computer the little guy getting pushed around. Watch how over the years, the power dynamic completely reverses itself, until Apple, inc. (no longer Apple Computer) is the one calling the shots. (Okay, found a link. It's "Apple Corps", not "Apple Music", by the way.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
- DerekL 13y ago
  Apple Computer also got sued by Apple Corp whenever they tried to add music synthesis hardware to their computers.
DanBC 13y ago
See also the small cafe "Harrods" which faced legal action from the well known English shop "Harrods". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otorohanga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otorohanga) > In 1986, the town briefly changed its name to "Harrodsville". This was a protest in support of a restaurateur, Henry Harrod of Palmerston North, who was being forced to change the name of his restaurant following threatening lawsuits from Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of Harrod's department store in London. > As a show of solidarity for Henry Harrod and in anticipation of actions against other similar sounding businesses, it was proposed that every business in Otorohanga should change its name to "Harrods". With support of the District Council, Otorohanga temporarily changed the town's name to Harrodsville.

by lutusp 13y ago

zokier 13y ago

> In this case it was decided that, because they were in different businesses, there was no great likelihood of public confusion Until iTunes was released.

krallja 13y ago
iPod (2001) came out before iTunes. The original Macintosh (1984) had very powerful sound hardware for the time.

drcube 13y ago

> A counterexample is Apple Computer and Apple Music (the latter owned by the Beatles). In this case it was decided that, because they were in different businesses, there was no great likelihood of public confusion. That's a bad example because Apple Computer eventually did enter the music business, with itunes, contrary to an earlier court's ruling that they stay out of that industry. I think they ended up just paying Apple Music a ton of money. So that's basically a case of infringing trademark, but having enough money to pay off the company whose mark you're infringing. As we all know, enough money solves any problem.

lutusp 13y ago
> That's a bad example because Apple Computer eventually did enter the music business, with itunes, contrary to an earlier court's ruling that they stay out of that industry. I would argue that that makes it a good example -- they eventually crossed the line and the issue had to be revisited. BTW thanks for posting and correcting the example. > I think they ended up just paying Apple Music a ton of money. That makes it a perfect example -- originally there was no issue or conflict, but eventually the two entities collided. > As we all know, enough money solves any problem. So it seems. I think it's a perfect example of how these things sort themselves out, because over time, it visited both extremes -- not an issue, then very much an issue.
- drcube 13y ago
  You're right, maybe that does make it a good example. No criticism intended. This wasn't a one time thing, by the way. There were a whole bunch of suits between the two companies over the years, I think starting way back in the 70s. It's interesting how Apple Music was initially the big company in the dispute, and Apple computer the little guy getting pushed around. Watch how over the years, the power dynamic completely reverses itself, until Apple, inc. (no longer Apple Computer) is the one calling the shots. (Okay, found a link. It's "Apple Corps", not "Apple Music", by the way.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
DerekL 13y ago
Apple Computer also got sued by Apple Corp whenever they tried to add music synthesis hardware to their computers.

DanBC 13y ago

See also the small cafe "Harrods" which faced legal action from the well known English shop "Harrods". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otorohanga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otorohanga) > In 1986, the town briefly changed its name to "Harrodsville". This was a protest in support of a restaurateur, Henry Harrod of Palmerston North, who was being forced to change the name of his restaurant following threatening lawsuits from Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of Harrod's department store in London. > As a show of solidarity for Henry Harrod and in anticipation of actions against other similar sounding businesses, it was proposed that every business in Otorohanga should change its name to "Harrods". With support of the District Council, Otorohanga temporarily changed the town's name to Harrodsville.