3 ms·
IANAL, but I know I do know a little bit about this stuff. Don't take this as legal advice. I'm sorry to say this, but the Apple scenario you've set out isn't
by arfar 11y ago
IANAL, but I know I do know a little bit about this stuff. Don't take this as legal advice.
I'm sorry to say this, but the Apple scenario you've set out isn't always going to be true. There's a thing called "Reverse Confusion" which says effectively (in my non-lawery words):
Why should some tiny wee company stop the well established brand reputation of a larger company? Big company has so much goodwill and reputation under this mark (from overseas or something like that), they should be able to use it.
On the face of it, it doesn't make much sense, but there's case law around it. If you're worried about something like that, definitely talk to a lawyer. Obviously this depends entirely on where you live and your local laws, but this case has come up in New Zealand very recently (I think it might still be being tried) with Uber. The taxi company were still able to use their trade mark, even though someone already had a mark in a vaguely similar domain before Uber were even around.
here's the first link I found on it if you wanted to read up about it more.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-confusion-trademark/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-confusion-trademark...
- leereeves 11y agoFrom that link: The first user [the smaller company] is virtually always the prevailing party in any trademark litigation. The doctrine of reverse confusion is intended to enable small, senior users to protect their trademark rights against junior users whose marks have gained commercial strength through extensive marketing. reverse confusion can be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of lesser known companies in terms of protecting their trademark rights and as leverage against larger users.
- arfar 11y agoSorry, yes you're right. I should've read the link I posted, I just assumed it would be the same as how its treated in New Zealand. Obviously reverse confusion is dealt differently in different parts of the world. Looks like US treats reverse confusion as if it were simply direct confusion. I'm pretty sure that's not the case where I live.