Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7
File: please respond.png (105KB, 325x282px) Image search:
[Google]
105KB, 325x282px
Can you get sued or otherwise pressured into changing your assumed business name if it's ''phonetically'' similar to an existing one?
i.e. Could Penis, inc. pressure Benis, inc. into changing their name on pain of litigation? Are there any precedents of this happening as an example?
>>
>>1645334
Yes. Esso became Exxon.
But that's because all the other split-offs of Standard Oil sued them because they were all in the oil business. (I learned that on this board, believe it or not)
If you're Benis Inc. and you manufacture sell direct to public clay mallard figurines, and Penis inc. manufacture for retailers and offices customized Pens with Inscriptions. Penis inc. will have no case.
>>
File: le thumbs up face.jpg (98KB, 717x540px) Image search:
[Google]
98KB, 717x540px
>>1645354
Okay so it's mostly about if you have a similar sounding name AND perform the same service? Or is there a few more caveats? Thanks!
>>
What's this waifu slut from?
>>
File: 10-05-09applewool2.jpg (77KB, 504x262px) Image search:
[Google]
77KB, 504x262px
>>1645372
Yes. I mean it also depends on how litigous and protective the company is.
Apple Computers once sued an Australian Green Grocer for trademark infringement because the Greengrocer's new logo looked like an Apple. (pic related).
>How fucking insane is that? A Greengrocer can't use an apple because of a technology company that stole the name of the Beatle's management company.
Having said that, McIntosh Laboratories (super super hi-fi equipment )are still around decades after the Macintosh Computer.
Generally though it's "could a reasonable person confuse the two" if the answer is No, you're in the clear. But there's always a margin of risk to these things.
>>
>>1645334
Trade mark law varies from country to country, you would have to check the situation in your country. For both the EU and the US, for non-identical marks infringement is where there is a likelihood of confusion.
Phonetic similarity is one consideration, and visual similarity is the other major consideration, and even conceptual similarity may be relevant.
A few other things to bear in mind though - trade marks are registered for particular goods or services, so infringement actually depends on both how similar the marks are, and how similar the goods/services are - this applies for both the US and EU.
Everything can go into the decision - the sophistication of the market, the types of goods and how they are usually sold, actual instances of confusion.
Just from the last year, some recent successful trade mark oppositions at the USPTO (this is where a mark is refused registration, but infringement is the same test)
NTRUST was refused against INTRUST
BASS COMMANDER vs DUCK COMMANDER
BULLRED vs REDBULL
ALAIR vs HOLAIRA
>>
File: art thou feeling it now mr krabs.gif (3MB, 300x225px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 300x225px
>>1645396
Monster Musume
>>1645423
>>1645432
It kind of begs the question of what's the worst that can happen and what's typical? Typically one party just has to change their name after a relatively inexpensive trial-I'd like to believe?
>>
>>1645446
Most cases are settled before legal proceedings. In cases I've been involved with, it's just been a case of my client promising not to do it again.
Not really any such thing as an inexpensive trial - it's a specialist subject.
This is an area I'm a bit hazy about in the US. In the UK, if infringement was found, you would be liable for damages or an account of profits (so, their lost profit for each item sold, or your profit for on it), and you would usually have to pay a big proportion of their court costs (high tens of thousands to about a hundred thousand for a small to medium case).
As I understand it in the US, you don't pay the other side's costs, but they not only get actual damages, but triple damages if your infringement was 'willful', so if you knew about their mark, and it was pretty obvious you infringed (if you get a favourable attorney's opinion beforehand, this can be a defence against triple damages).
>>
>>1645334
I don't think so.
>>
>>1645334
Like others said it depends. If you own a minor petroleum company and name it 'Mobile-Exonn' you will get sued and lose. If you own a dildo factory make big dildos and call it '7 to 11 ' the convience store chain probably can't win a suit. Not in the same market and the meaning of the name is not the same.
>>
>>1645334
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft
>>
>>1645334
I'd advise you to buy LAND
>>
File: FB_IMG_1480508198450.jpg (38KB, 528x960px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 528x960px
>>1645334
PENIS inc.
Checking domain now.
>>
>>1645510
Got a xbox as a consolation ahahaha what a trooper Ima get a mac for free brb
>>
>>1645334
you can get sued for anything.
whether or not you'd lose is a different matter, but if you can't afford the legal fees you'll always lose, no?
>>
>>1645423
The Apple Macintosh was named after the McIntosh apple.
Apple changed the spelling because they were worried that McIntosh Laboratories would sue them if they didn't.
McIntosh Laboratories sued them anyway.
And, thanks to the spelling change, so did a raincoat company.
>>
>>1647604
>And, thanks to the spelling change, so did a raincoat company.
Kek.
Very strange.
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7