5 ms·

Did they really trademark Sprite™? Doesn't Coca Cola own that?

by pdq 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Did they really trademark Sprite™? Probably. > Doesn't Coca Cola own that? Within a particular domain. Trademarks do not cover all possible commercial uses of a mark.
ceejayoz 11y ago
Trademarks are industry-scoped. http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trademark_law/trademark_protection.htm http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trademark_la...
jellicle 11y ago
> Did they really trademark Sprite™? No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM. > Doesn't Coca Cola own that? Yes, and under modern trademark law, Coca-Cola will be contacting/threatening them shortly, so you can expect a project name change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act
- narrowrail 11y ago
  As mentioned by others, that's not how trademark law works. Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace. I'd bet you $1000 on longbets.org that KO do not cause this company to change the name of their toy drone company.
  - iamcurious 11y ago
    My understanding of law leaves lots to be desired, but wouldn't the trial, even if they won, be way too expensive? And there is always the risk of losing, Coca-Cola can certainly afford better lawyers.
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      If I would be a startup I would love that kind of publicity.
      - iamcurious 11y ago
        Sure, as long as you can convert said publicity into money faster than you the lawsuit drains you.
  - nacs 11y ago
    > Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace This drone does look like a 2-liter [Sprite] bottle though :)
  - jellicle 11y ago
    You didn't even click the link I provided, did you?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > > Did they really trademark Sprite™? > No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM. The circle-R is for a registered trademark. Something can be claimed as (and protected as) a trademark -- and thus, trademarked -- without also being a registered trademark.
  - Namrog84 11y ago
    Precisely! Also When I first saw the post in hn. I immediately thought like a game graphic sprite. Not even the soda.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  coca cola will contact them, but that won't necessaruily result in a chage. As pointed out, drones are a distinct market from sugary drinks, sot he likelihood of consumer confusion is low. It's true that Coke's legal department will write a grumpy letter anyway, in order to create a legal record of actively defending their existing mark, which can be raised in court if they are ever confronted with a genuine infringer. I assume/hope the Spirte team have budgeted a few $ for the legal expenses in replying to such a letter, but agree with the poster below that the cost might well be covered by the value of free publicity over a trademark dispute. I hope that's not a deliberate strategy, as it's the sort of thing that could turn into an abusive practice.
  - jellicle 11y ago
    If you had clicked the link I provided, you might come to understand that since 1995, U.S. trademark law does not just work in the way you described, but also includes the concept of "dilution", where famous marks are protected by law even though there is zero chance of consumer confusion.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      You should be looking at the Trademark dilution revision act of 2006 which has superseded it. While Coke would easily get an injunction against blurring, there are counter arguments about similarity, and the lack of intentional or factual associations with the famous Sprite mark, not to mention it's lack of inherent distinctiveness (as opposed to say '7up'.) The situation is more nuanced than you suggest. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr683/summary https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr683/summary has a good CRS-authored summary of that legislation's content.

Did they really trademark Sprite™? Doesn't Coca Cola own that?

by pdq 11y ago

Did they really trademark Sprite™? Doesn't Coca Cola own that?

> Did they really trademark Sprite™? Probably. > Doesn't Coca Cola own that? Within a particular domain. Trademarks do not cover all possible commercial uses of a mark.

ceejayoz 11y ago

Trademarks are industry-scoped. http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trademark_law/trademark_protection.htm http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trademark_la...

jellicle 11y ago

> Did they really trademark Sprite™? No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM. > Doesn't Coca Cola own that? Yes, and under modern trademark law, Coca-Cola will be contacting/threatening them shortly, so you can expect a project name change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act

narrowrail 11y ago
As mentioned by others, that's not how trademark law works. Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace. I'd bet you $1000 on longbets.org that KO do not cause this company to change the name of their toy drone company.
- iamcurious 11y ago
  My understanding of law leaves lots to be desired, but wouldn't the trial, even if they won, be way too expensive? And there is always the risk of losing, Coca-Cola can certainly afford better lawyers.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    If I would be a startup I would love that kind of publicity.
    - iamcurious 11y ago
      Sure, as long as you can convert said publicity into money faster than you the lawsuit drains you.
- nacs 11y ago
  > Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace This drone does look like a 2-liter [Sprite] bottle though :)
- jellicle 11y ago
  You didn't even click the link I provided, did you?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> > Did they really trademark Sprite™? > No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM. The circle-R is for a registered trademark. Something can be claimed as (and protected as) a trademark -- and thus, trademarked -- without also being a registered trademark.
- Namrog84 11y ago
  Precisely! Also When I first saw the post in hn. I immediately thought like a game graphic sprite. Not even the soda.
anigbrowl 11y ago
coca cola will contact them, but that won't necessaruily result in a chage. As pointed out, drones are a distinct market from sugary drinks, sot he likelihood of consumer confusion is low. It's true that Coke's legal department will write a grumpy letter anyway, in order to create a legal record of actively defending their existing mark, which can be raised in court if they are ever confronted with a genuine infringer. I assume/hope the Spirte team have budgeted a few $ for the legal expenses in replying to such a letter, but agree with the poster below that the cost might well be covered by the value of free publicity over a trademark dispute. I hope that's not a deliberate strategy, as it's the sort of thing that could turn into an abusive practice.
- jellicle 11y ago
  If you had clicked the link I provided, you might come to understand that since 1995, U.S. trademark law does not just work in the way you described, but also includes the concept of "dilution", where famous marks are protected by law even though there is zero chance of consumer confusion.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    You should be looking at the Trademark dilution revision act of 2006 which has superseded it. While Coke would easily get an injunction against blurring, there are counter arguments about similarity, and the lack of intentional or factual associations with the famous Sprite mark, not to mention it's lack of inherent distinctiveness (as opposed to say '7up'.) The situation is more nuanced than you suggest. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr683/summary https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr683/summary has a good CRS-authored summary of that legislation's content.