5 ms·

I assumed the same company as you. However, I fall on the other side of the analysis, that Watsi is 1. not interfering with any trademarks registered by BCBS (

I assumed the same company as you. However, I fall on the other side of the analysis, that Watsi is 1. not interfering with any trademarks registered by BCBS (all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark); and 2. otherwise not causing any confusion in the markplace (for example who is going to donate to Watsi under the belief they were donating to BCBS, there is a test of the reasonable consumer and BCBS would have to prove actual confusion in the marketplace...good luck on that). I am sure Watsi being who they are made an informed decision and with the advice of counsel. The sad thing is the advice was probably to the effect that while Watsi has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their use of the mark, BCBS has enough money to try to enforce the mark without putting a dent in their litigation budget, and Watsi's money would be better spent on Watsi's mission of helping people not in defending litigation. Nevertheless I would have felt good defending Watsi's use of the mark.

paulbaumgart 13y ago
Yeah, using a plus-symbol for healthcare-related things really shouldn't be protectable under trademark law, considering it's been in use since the 1864 Geneva Convention.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  It's just the blue plus symbol. Other plus symbols are used by other companies without issue.
  - unreal37 13y ago
    No I believe the Red Cross has international protection over the use of a red plus symbol. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Re...
    - JacobAldridge 13y ago
      Yes. One of my colleagues tells a fabulous story about 'breaching the Geneva convention' by playing a nurse in a pantomime with a Red Cross on his headpiece. The reality, of course, is slightly less than that - they used his photo in the promotions, and the Red Cross contacted them to advise that the symbol was protected and 'request' that they change the costume, which of course they were happy to do.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Are you supposed to be disagreeing with me? I believe your disagreement is with the fellow whom I responded to. :)
chimeracoder 13y ago
> all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark As I noted in my post, though, marks don't have to be registered in order to be protected. Even if BCBS doesn't have any instances of the blue cross alone registered with the USPTO[0], that doesn't mean that BCBS couldn't still have trademark rights to it. > while we have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing our use of the mark I'm not convinced - there are many (seemingly) clearer-cut cases that have gone the other way. I'm not saying that this is the ideal state of trademark law, but I think that there's reasonable precedent for it. > they have enough money to try to enforce the mark without putting a dent in their litigation budget I agree that this is probably the dominant reason. [0] Which I would not necessarily conclude based solely on the fact that you couldn't find it. It's not a comment on your searching skills; I've used it before, and TESS (the USPTO database search) sucks.
- will_brown 13y ago
  >TESS (the USPTO database search) sucks. 100% agree with you. A story I have told a few times on HN was getting a C&D letter for the use of the mark "blood" on a previous product I manufactured, and a basic search on TESS of "blood" will not turn up the registered mark (turns up a lot of other marks that include blood, but not blood by itself) I can only find it searching the registration number. Watsi is being classy by not even naming the company, but I would like to see the C&D or demand letter they received.
  - cpwright 13y ago
    > Watsi is being classy by not even naming the company There is no doubt as to who a multi-billion dollar health insurance company who would take issue with a logo that is literally a blue cross with a triangle cut out of it. I didn't read their post as classy, but rather snarky. I don't have a problem with them calling out BCBS, but I don't think it is at all classy the way they did it. They may have avoided saying BCBS for legal reasons, but that doesn't make it classy.
    - 13y ago
jbooth 13y ago
An additional note, trademark lawyers are often obligated to try and sue people over trademarks, even if they'd rather not, because if they don't zealously defend their trademark, it's considered 'weakened' and that can then become evidence against them in some future case when a different party infringes. So the blue cross people were doing what they had to do. It sure is funny though how almost every law is interpreted in a way that maximizes future legal work involved.
- Angostura 13y ago
  I am reminded of the occasion back in 1986 when I wrote a piece for a technology magazine where I described networking standards as an 'alphabeti-spaghetti'. I received a warning letter from Heinz' lawyers a few weeks after publication.
- crusso 13y ago
  It's almost like most of our laws were written by a bunch of lawyers.
  - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
    And knowing who paid the lawyers is an effective tl;dr -- what the law truly seeks to accomplish.
  - Perdition 13y ago
    The requirement to protect your trademark is a good thing. There are a fairly limited number of useful marks because companies need fairly short names. Imagine if trademarks worked like copyright and modern companies had to worry about infringing the mark of a company that hasn't traded since 1940?
- aidenn0 13y ago
  The alternative is the patent situation where you can turn up a 15 year old patent that hasn't been enforced and sue everybody over it. If patent enforcement worked like trademark enforcement, then trolls would have a much harder time.
- 13y ago
bbanyc 13y ago
BCBS isn't a company. It's an association of a few dozen regional companies, some of which have their own word marks - Empire BCBS in New York is a separate company from CareFirst BCBS in Maryland, and so on. In some areas, like California, the local Blue Cross never merged with the local Blue Shield and they remain separate. There are a lot of different possible trademark holders to check. I did some TESS digging of my own and found that the Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association holds a trademark on the cross logo alone: serial number 72450146, granted for "pre-paid financing of hospital and medical services". And given that all the Blue Cross companies used to be nonprofit (some still are) I'd say there's enough of a chance of confusion that a medical-related nonprofit whose logo is a blue cross is somehow affiliated with Blue Cross for some BCBS entity to have a case.
- Steko 13y ago
  Bingo. As someone who works for a non-profit Blue Cross organization I find the outrage ITT incredibly misplaced. I could make a great charity of feeding burgers and fries to homeless people but if I chose a golden M for my charity's logo that's just a mistake on my part and I'm going to get a call from the McDowell's people. Yes we all love Watsi and they deserve nothing but praise for their work. They made a small goof on the logo and are fixing it and even finding a way to turn a small misstep into a positive.
- will_brown 13y ago
  >BCBS isn't a company. It's an association of a few dozen regional companies, some of which have their own word marks "The association owns and manages the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Trademarks." http://www.bcbs.com/about-the-association/ http://www.bcbs.com/about-the-association/ Some of the "independent" companies comprising the Association are the "registered owner" of marks but obviously that is only through a license with the Association, and they are not actual owners they are licensees. >serial number 72450146 As I acknowledged in my comment there may have been such a mark and admitted to another comment I have previously been unable to find a specific mark with TESS. That said the design of the mark you found: 1. is the cross with the "Silhouettes of men" design in the middle, and 2. they specifically avoided identifying the color of the cross(i.e. they could have specifically identified blue to receive very specific and greater protection as to blue crosses, instead they receive a more general protection for a cross with a man in any color). Additionally, the category of the mark you identified is category 36 or in other words "insurance", therefore, it is going to be difficult to enforce the mark against a non-insurance company even if they are involved with medical services in one way or another (again I concede there may be other and more appropriate marks registered). > I'd say there's enough of a chance of confusion Although the legal standard is "likelihood of confusion", there still needs to be a showing of actual confusion in the market place (i.e. did a reasonable person actually donate to Watsi thinking it was BCBS, or can BCBS produce surveys of consumers showing they are actually confused?). It is possible, but I do not think so. Again I feel Watsi saw their effort/money better spent on their mission not on needless litigation, and I think they made the right choice, but as their counsel I would have said they would likely prevail, that said it is possible their counsel would not agree with me just the same as you.

paulbaumgart 13y ago

Yeah, using a plus-symbol for healthcare-related things really shouldn't be protectable under trademark law, considering it's been in use since the 1864 Geneva Convention.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
It's just the blue plus symbol. Other plus symbols are used by other companies without issue.
- unreal37 13y ago
  No I believe the Red Cross has international protection over the use of a red plus symbol. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Re...
  - JacobAldridge 13y ago
    Yes. One of my colleagues tells a fabulous story about 'breaching the Geneva convention' by playing a nurse in a pantomime with a Red Cross on his headpiece. The reality, of course, is slightly less than that - they used his photo in the promotions, and the Red Cross contacted them to advise that the symbol was protected and 'request' that they change the costume, which of course they were happy to do.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Are you supposed to be disagreeing with me? I believe your disagreement is with the fellow whom I responded to. :)

chimeracoder 13y ago

> all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark As I noted in my post, though, marks don't have to be registered in order to be protected. Even if BCBS doesn't have any instances of the blue cross alone registered with the USPTO[0], that doesn't mean that BCBS couldn't still have trademark rights to it. > while we have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing our use of the mark I'm not convinced - there are many (seemingly) clearer-cut cases that have gone the other way. I'm not saying that this is the ideal state of trademark law, but I think that there's reasonable precedent for it. > they have enough money to try to enforce the mark without putting a dent in their litigation budget I agree that this is probably the dominant reason. [0] Which I would not necessarily conclude based solely on the fact that you couldn't find it. It's not a comment on your searching skills; I've used it before, and TESS (the USPTO database search) sucks.

will_brown 13y ago
>TESS (the USPTO database search) sucks. 100% agree with you. A story I have told a few times on HN was getting a C&D letter for the use of the mark "blood" on a previous product I manufactured, and a basic search on TESS of "blood" will not turn up the registered mark (turns up a lot of other marks that include blood, but not blood by itself) I can only find it searching the registration number. Watsi is being classy by not even naming the company, but I would like to see the C&D or demand letter they received.
- cpwright 13y ago
  > Watsi is being classy by not even naming the company There is no doubt as to who a multi-billion dollar health insurance company who would take issue with a logo that is literally a blue cross with a triangle cut out of it. I didn't read their post as classy, but rather snarky. I don't have a problem with them calling out BCBS, but I don't think it is at all classy the way they did it. They may have avoided saying BCBS for legal reasons, but that doesn't make it classy.
  - 13y ago

jbooth 13y ago

An additional note, trademark lawyers are often obligated to try and sue people over trademarks, even if they'd rather not, because if they don't zealously defend their trademark, it's considered 'weakened' and that can then become evidence against them in some future case when a different party infringes. So the blue cross people were doing what they had to do. It sure is funny though how almost every law is interpreted in a way that maximizes future legal work involved.

Angostura 13y ago
I am reminded of the occasion back in 1986 when I wrote a piece for a technology magazine where I described networking standards as an 'alphabeti-spaghetti'. I received a warning letter from Heinz' lawyers a few weeks after publication.
crusso 13y ago
It's almost like most of our laws were written by a bunch of lawyers.
- 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
  And knowing who paid the lawyers is an effective tl;dr -- what the law truly seeks to accomplish.
- Perdition 13y ago
  The requirement to protect your trademark is a good thing. There are a fairly limited number of useful marks because companies need fairly short names. Imagine if trademarks worked like copyright and modern companies had to worry about infringing the mark of a company that hasn't traded since 1940?
aidenn0 13y ago
The alternative is the patent situation where you can turn up a 15 year old patent that hasn't been enforced and sue everybody over it. If patent enforcement worked like trademark enforcement, then trolls would have a much harder time.
13y ago

bbanyc 13y ago

BCBS isn't a company. It's an association of a few dozen regional companies, some of which have their own word marks - Empire BCBS in New York is a separate company from CareFirst BCBS in Maryland, and so on. In some areas, like California, the local Blue Cross never merged with the local Blue Shield and they remain separate. There are a lot of different possible trademark holders to check. I did some TESS digging of my own and found that the Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association holds a trademark on the cross logo alone: serial number 72450146, granted for "pre-paid financing of hospital and medical services". And given that all the Blue Cross companies used to be nonprofit (some still are) I'd say there's enough of a chance of confusion that a medical-related nonprofit whose logo is a blue cross is somehow affiliated with Blue Cross for some BCBS entity to have a case.

Steko 13y ago
Bingo. As someone who works for a non-profit Blue Cross organization I find the outrage ITT incredibly misplaced. I could make a great charity of feeding burgers and fries to homeless people but if I chose a golden M for my charity's logo that's just a mistake on my part and I'm going to get a call from the McDowell's people. Yes we all love Watsi and they deserve nothing but praise for their work. They made a small goof on the logo and are fixing it and even finding a way to turn a small misstep into a positive.
will_brown 13y ago
>BCBS isn't a company. It's an association of a few dozen regional companies, some of which have their own word marks "The association owns and manages the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Trademarks." http://www.bcbs.com/about-the-association/ http://www.bcbs.com/about-the-association/ Some of the "independent" companies comprising the Association are the "registered owner" of marks but obviously that is only through a license with the Association, and they are not actual owners they are licensees. >serial number 72450146 As I acknowledged in my comment there may have been such a mark and admitted to another comment I have previously been unable to find a specific mark with TESS. That said the design of the mark you found: 1. is the cross with the "Silhouettes of men" design in the middle, and 2. they specifically avoided identifying the color of the cross(i.e. they could have specifically identified blue to receive very specific and greater protection as to blue crosses, instead they receive a more general protection for a cross with a man in any color). Additionally, the category of the mark you identified is category 36 or in other words "insurance", therefore, it is going to be difficult to enforce the mark against a non-insurance company even if they are involved with medical services in one way or another (again I concede there may be other and more appropriate marks registered). > I'd say there's enough of a chance of confusion Although the legal standard is "likelihood of confusion", there still needs to be a showing of actual confusion in the market place (i.e. did a reasonable person actually donate to Watsi thinking it was BCBS, or can BCBS produce surveys of consumers showing they are actually confused?). It is possible, but I do not think so. Again I feel Watsi saw their effort/money better spent on their mission not on needless litigation, and I think they made the right choice, but as their counsel I would have said they would likely prevail, that said it is possible their counsel would not agree with me just the same as you.