3 ms·

It is also legally yours if you use it and no one challenges for a long period of time. Trademarks are based on use. Massive corporate behemoths have lost loca

It is also legally yours if you use it and no one challenges for a long period of time. Trademarks are based on use. Massive corporate behemoths have lost local TM use because some mom-and-pop store was using a trademark first.

theOnliest 13y ago
My favorite example of this is the Waffle House (24-hour dive). In Indiana, "Waffle House" was already taken, so the national chain had to use "Waffle & Steak" instead. Of course, since we used to call the Waffle House "WaHo," this leads to the MUCH better name "WaSte"! [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak
- jamestnz 13y ago
  Another interesting example is the fact that Burger King is known ubiquitously as "Hungry Jack's" within Australia (but here in New Zealand we get the real BK branding). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Burger_King.22_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Bur... "When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by a takeaway food shop in Adelaide. As a result, Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible alternative names derived from pre-existing trademarks already registered by Burger King and its then corporate parent Pillsbury that could be used to name the Australian restaurants. Cowin selected the "Hungry Jack" brand name, one of Pillsbury's U.S. pancake mixture products..."
  - huxley 13y ago
    An important US trademark case (Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots (1968)) also involved Burger King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) The court ruled that federal trademark registration had priority over state law, and that the big chain Burger King had rights to the “Burger King” name everywhere except in Mattoon, Illinois. Since the Hoots family had prior actual use there, they retained the name for the Mattoon area.

theOnliest 13y ago

My favorite example of this is the Waffle House (24-hour dive). In Indiana, "Waffle House" was already taken, so the national chain had to use "Waffle & Steak" instead. Of course, since we used to call the Waffle House "WaHo," this leads to the MUCH better name "WaSte"! [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak

jamestnz 13y ago
Another interesting example is the fact that Burger King is known ubiquitously as "Hungry Jack's" within Australia (but here in New Zealand we get the real BK branding). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Burger_King.22_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Bur... "When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by a takeaway food shop in Adelaide. As a result, Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible alternative names derived from pre-existing trademarks already registered by Burger King and its then corporate parent Pillsbury that could be used to name the Australian restaurants. Cowin selected the "Hungry Jack" brand name, one of Pillsbury's U.S. pancake mixture products..."
- huxley 13y ago
  An important US trademark case (Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots (1968)) also involved Burger King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) The court ruled that federal trademark registration had priority over state law, and that the big chain Burger King had rights to the “Burger King” name everywhere except in Mattoon, Illinois. Since the Hoots family had prior actual use there, they retained the name for the Mattoon area.