Can you copy a trademark&#39;s goods and services description? Assume a trademark filed with the USPTO uses the language "software used to calculate PI, the square root of PI, and the cosine of PI" in its description of goods and services. Can another, subsequent, unrelated, trademark applicant to the USPTO use this exact same language in its goods and services description? If yes, why? If not, is the grievance with: a) the USPTO, because directly copying goods and services language is forbidden, and/or b) the original trademark holder, because the trademark goods and services description is the intellectual property of that original trademark holder
Of course another applicant can use that language. What they can't do is register the same trademark for the same goods or services. If the goods or services protected by a trademark were required to be unique, there'd be no point in having trademarks. Instead, we would have state-sanctioned monopolies. To put it another way, the point of a trademark is to identify the commercial source of particular goods or services. Suppose you sell oranges under the trademark-protected name "Jerzy's oranges," with a goods and services description reading "the sale of oranges." Your registration does not prohibit others from selling oranges; it prohibits them from selling oranges using your name. Any competitor can register a unique trademark to use in the sale of oranges, however, with an identical goods and services description of "the sale of oranges."
There is no IP in ideas! There is copyright in writing it down - they can't use your exact words without permission. However, sending it to them in the form of a suggestion would give them a pretty much unassailable argument that you have given them an implicit licence. You can patent an invention (not an idea), claim IP in a trade mark (also, not an idea), register a design (again, not an idea) and hold copyright in an artistic work (once more, not an idea). They are required to keep confidences but offering them a suggestion probably doesn't count as supplying confidential information. I can see no risk in acting on customer suggestions. Hence, the idea to raise prices can be acted on or not at the discretion of the company.
Is this legal? Generally yes, unless it unlawfully exceeds the scope of the license. Also, if it is, how can I check if it's permitted by the original store's EULA? Read the whole EULA, focusing on terms related to resale, assignment, and transferability.
"Doing the same thing" is very common. We even have names for certain categories of websites, such as "web shop" and "blog". Such concepts are not protected in general. Obviously, you can't copy the name of existing webshop, or their logo, but things like a "rectangular layout of products for sale" aren't original. There is of course a grey area here, because there's a continuum of similarity. In general, similarities that follow from technical justifications are acceptable (having an upload button is sort of the point for your website), similarities that are cosmetic only (same color choice) might be interpreted as intentional attempts to cause confusion.
Don't get hung up on unauthorized resale. That only prohibits unauthorized resale. Authorized resale is ok. From http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine: The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) &amp; (c). Since the first sale doctrine never protects a defendant who makes unauthorized reproductions of a copyrighted work, the first sale doctrine cannot be a successful defense in cases that allege infringing reproduction.
This is permitted so long as it doesn't violate a valid trademark or service mark (or a few equivalent rights in names that are comparable such as collective rights to market beef under the name &quot;Waygu&quot; only if it is produced in a certain area of Japan under Japanese law) that covers goods or services of the same type in the same economic market. A trademark arises either when a term acquires a &quot;secondary meaning&quot; associating its use in connection with a particular kind of good or services in a particular market with a particular provider of that good or that service, or by registration of the trademark or service mark. &quot;Tresh&quot; and &quot;Cassiopeia&quot; are not terms that inherently are related to software, so they are permissible to use as trademarks for software unless someone else already has established trademark protection for them.
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 would refer you to I Received a Letter/Email. . . from the USPTO website. Generally though you should be careful about using another company's trademark as part of your product's name. A less risky option would be to name your product Shareaholic and then in the subtitle or description write for use with Pinterest. The point of trademarks is to prevent consumers from confusing the source or sponsorship of a product or service. If you were in court, the central question would become "would a consumer reasonably be confused whether Shareaholic for Pinterest was made by or approved by Pinterest?" And you have to remember, most consumers don't read small print such as "not affiliated with Pinterest". Lots of visitors to Pinterest and by extension users of your software may be children or elderly and computer-illiterate. You may also want to read "How do I know whether I'm infringing" at the USPTO website.