Are Donations Enough to Validate Trademark? Suppose a business does the following: claims one of their brands is an unregistered trademark gives away 100,000 free T-Shirts to random entities using the brand mentioned in Step1 above accepts a $1 donation from a random entity to thank the business for free T-Shirts that were received Does the business now have a legal basis to enforce its unregistered trademark claim?
There must be a use in commerce Assuming there are no other barriers to trademark protection, you are asking what amounts to a &quot;use in commerce&quot; that is sufficient to warrant trademark protection (I'm assuming in United States law). In the United States, the protection comes from the Lanham Act, and protection requires &quot;use in commerce&quot;. See e.g. International Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2003). This requires &quot;the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark&quot; (15 U.S.C. § 1127). This does not require a sale and token sales are not determinative However, &quot;the existence of sale or lack thereof does not by itself determine whether a user of a mark has established owenrship rights therein&quot; (Planetary Motion v. Techplosion, 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001)): announcement of a title (&quot;Plasmer&quot;) to 13 million comic book readers and promotion at a trade conference was sufficient to establish trademark rights, even without sales but a toy manufacturer's promotional efforts were not sufficient—they only made a few presentations and even made one sale to a toy retailer The talismanic test is whether or not the mark was used &quot;in a way sufficiently public to identify or distinguish the marked goods in an appropriate segment of the public mind as those of the adopter of the mark&quot; (Windows User, Inc. v. Reed Business Publishing Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), citing New England Duplicating Co. v. Mendes, 190 F.2d 415, 417 (1st Cir. 1951)) The Court in Planetary Motion says &quot;Courts applying the 'totality of circumstances' approach routinely have found evidence of a few sales of goods to which the mark had been affixed insufficient to establish trademark ownership.&quot; In the particular case in Planetary Motion, the Court found that free distribution of software using the &quot;Coolmail&quot; mark constituted a &quot;use in commerce.&quot; The factors they noted were: the distribution was widespread there was evidence that the public actually associated the mark with the software distribution was not limited to a trade show or a group of friends or small circle the software was posted and accessible on the internet using the filename bearing &quot;Coolmail&quot; users were communicating about the software using the word &quot;Coolmail&quot; the software was incorporated into other software that was sold the software was distributed under a GNU General Public License—&quot;the sufficiency of use should be determined according to the customary practices of a particular industry&quot; Application is fact-based, looking at the totality of the circumstances Applying the principles from above to your hypothetical, the fact that there are not widespread sales would raise an immediate issue that could be argued in litigation. The question would come up as to whether this was a &quot;bona fide use&quot; and not use &quot;made merely to reserve a right in a mark.&quot; In my view, the single donation of one dollar would not change anything; nor would even a literal sale of a single shirt. The question would turn on whether the distribution of 100,000 shirts, even without sale, created a connection in the minds of users between the mark and a product (presumably clothing?), and put others on sufficient notice that this mark was to be used in commerce. This is a heavily fact-based inquiry, and on the facts of the hypothetical, we just don't have the information to answer this.
The question is always, would a reasonable customer be confused into thinking that the two are the same, or that there is some relation or sponsorship or attribute to one product or firm the rightful reputation of another. That is always dependent on the specific facts and the specific market involved. So-called &quot;famous&quot; marks get extra protection. The exact markets involved will matter. Any stylizations such as colors and typefaces may matter. Logos may matter. I can't say if one of those specific names would be found to infringe on the other.
I'm wondering whos responsible for this code if people start using it? The user. Can the people using it that think its under GPL in any way get in trouble for it or be made to remove it from their projects? Yes, they can be sued (successfully) for copyright violation. It’s not enough that you think you have permission from the copyright holder - you actually have to have permission. The law places the onus on the copier to seek out and get permission from the copyright holder. In theory, someone deceived in this way could sue the repo poster(s) for misrepresentation, however, there are practical issues about finding them, having them in an accessible jurisdiction and if they are judgement proof. Copyright law was created to protect physical books and paintings - it doesn’t really fit with digital methods of reproduction but it is the law. It doesn’t matter that complying with it can be hard bordering on impossible - comply with it you must.
OK, the prohibition on commercial use stems from either: The tort of passing off; this is a private civil matter between the model and the publisher, or Breach of s18 of the Australian Consumer Law which involve misleading or deceptive conduct; this is a public civil matter with strict liability (i.e. intention or negligence is irrelevant) between the ACCC and the publisher with fines of up to $1,100,000 for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual. In both cases the cause of action arises from the possible presumption by a person who views the photograph that the model in it is endorsing the goods or services that you are selling. The standard is: Would a reasonable person, viewing the photograph in context, come to the conclusion that the model is endorsing the goods or services (either because they really like it or they were paid to show they really liked it). Context is everything here. Some examples: If you a photo studio selling the actual photograph then there is no endorsement. If you are using the photograph to promote the studio there is. If you are showing a crowd scene (e.g. at a football match) there is no endorsement. If you are showing a building and the people are incidental there is no endorsement. If you are showing individuals or small groups in a way that promotes your goods or services there is endorsement. So, look at the photograph and the purpose you are using it for: could a reasonable person draw the conclusion that the people in it are endorsing your application?
No This summarizes the situation with Disney specifically. The Disney trademarks are so ubiquitous and recognizable as being Disney's and not, for example, yours that your use is bound to create confusion in the minds of the public that your business is in some way associated with Disney. That is the essence of trademark infringement. In particular, where your business has nothing to do with the characters it is clear that you are only using them for the cachet of the Disney reputation. Disney will defend their trademarks - this is not at all unlikely.
united-states If the computer is in fact a HAL-9001 (no doubt running the Clarke-68 OS) then the reseller can so describe it without trademark infringement. This is a case of nominative use, where the trademark is used as the name of the thing, to describe and/or refer to it. In addition, under US law, an attempt to prohibit the reseller from using that term would run into first amendment issues, and would be subject to strict scrutiny. If the term were used in such a way as to disparage the brand, there could possibly be an action for tarnishment of the trademark. but such actions are now limited in the US on first amendment grounds, following the case of Matal v. Tam. See What is trademark tarnishment or dilution under US law? for more details.
The relevant law is trademark law. The basic question is whether the mark is identical or creates an unreasonable risk of confusion with the protected mark. There is no per se 30%-40% rule. I can imagine cases where changing a single letter in a long phrase turns a trademark violation into a parody or clearly different mark (see the Electric Company TV show). I can also imagine cases where changing a large part of the mark could still be infringing and confusingly similar. A parody is protected on fair use grounds in copyright law (which could conceivably come into play since this is a derivative work but would be protected since it is a parody), but in trademark law the issue is that a parody is unlikely to be confused for the original. Of course, at a fine grained level when one is looking at particular cases rather than general ideas, you would have to know which country's laws were involved, for example, where the goods would be sold.
Ideally, you would say something like &quot;Compatible with WhatsApp. Not endorsed or affiliated with WhatsApp.&quot; If you do that, it would be a valid nominative use of the other company's trademark and would face a very low risk of an infringement action.