Can I use a store name as part of my trivia game? If I make a trivia card game or video game for sale and one the questions is "Which grocery store was founded in 1930 by George W. Jenkins?" and the the answer is presented as "Publix". Is this a trademark infringement? Can I use that name as part of my game? Do I need to use a little 'R', 'TM' or 'C' with the name?
A name is not protected by copyright. It can be protected as a trademark, but it would almost certainly be allowed as nominative fair use, since the alternative of indirect descriptive reference ("the grocery store founded in 1930 by George W. Jenkins") is not only cumbersome, but it doesn't even answer the question, where only the name can be used. Trademark protection is not absolute ownership of a word, it is the right to a specific use of a word (e.g. to identify a specific brand of computer for commercial purposes). If you use a trademark symbol, you have to be careful to use the right one (it may be illegal to imply registration by using R when the trademark is not registered). As far as I can determine, there is no obligation for a third party to so mark trademark terms, though it is commonly done.
It would not be a copyright. Names and short phrases are not subject to copyright, but it could be a trademark under common law ( e.g. state law in the U.S.) or could be registered. Some people think a trademark defines a product. That is not the case, a trademark identifies the source of a product or service.
This is likely not fair use. At first blush it appeared similar to things one might see in The Onion (parody print and online newspaper) or other parody publications or shows (SNL, Key and Peele, etc.). In this case, the context would have likely been deemed transformative. However, since they are selling coffee called "Dumb Starbucks" while using their trademark, they would be be found liable if sued. You can parody a trademark brand, so long as the work is transformative such that the use of the brand goes from selling coffee to making a commentary in which the brand itself is relevant. Amendment I don't think this would pass the test as a parody/commentary. Originally, I failed to notice that they are actually selling coffee. This takes it out of fair use and they would almost certainly lose if sued. If they never sold the coffee, but just had it open as a performance art (like I had originally read this) giving the coffee away to complete the parody, I think they'd be fine. However, they are literally using the Starbucks logo, and selling the same product. This is clearly an infringement of their copyright and not fair use. Sorry for the confusion.
You mean like Unilever, and countless others do? Yes. Many, many companies control a stable of brands, often of competing products. This is particularly prevalent in grocery lines (cleaning, food, beauty products) and motor vehicles (there are dozens of brands of motor vehicle but only a handful of automotive companies). Clearly, these products have different features (improvements) – you are entitled to segment your market anyway you like. If they are actually produced by the same company, keeping that secret would be virtually impossible. If they were separate companies (even with licencing agreements etc.), well, they are not the same company even if they have common ownership. As for having a monopoly: if you hold a patent you are allowed to have a monopoly, if you don't, expect to see knock-off rocket boots on the shelf in a week.
As is typical with legal matters, &quot;it depends&quot;. It is not copyright infringement to mention the name of an artist or work of art. It may be infringement of trademark, or of the right of publicity. For example, Apple Computers has trademarked the name &quot;Apple&quot; in the domain of computers, so you cannot call your computer company &quot;Apple Computers&quot;, without their permission. You also cannot advertise in a way that implies that Taylor Swift endorsed your product, without her permission – this is the &quot;right of publicity&quot; (the name may differ, e.g. &quot;passing off&quot; depending on jurisdiction). The situation in the US is highly variable, since it depends on state law. The legal inclinations of the particular artist may be irrelevant, since they often have legal arrangements with publishers, and if you are going to get sued, it might be the publisher that sues you. Hiring an attorney to evaluate the specifics of your idea is the only reasonable approach to the matter.
Can the word &quot;Cola&quot; be used for commercial purposes? It depends on what you want to do with it, but most uses would be permissible. &quot;Cola&quot; is, as you note, a generic term, comparable to &quot;trout&quot; or &quot;sugar&quot; or &quot;beer.&quot; Still, generic words may be subject to trademark protection. Even &quot;coca&quot; is a generic word. Such protection is, furthermore, not exclusive; trademark protection is more subtle and complex than most people realize. There might be a company called &quot;Cola&quot; that operates guided outdoor activities, but that wouldn't necessarily prevent an unrelated company of the same name from pursuing the same business in another jurisdiction. Similarly, it might not prevent a company that repairs household appliances in the same jurisdiction from calling itself &quot;Cola.&quot; For example, in the US, you can buy &quot;Dove&quot; personal care products and &quot;Dove&quot; chocolate; they are sold under distinct trademarks. The central criterion is confusion: trademark protection primarily prevents others from confusing consumers about the source of goods or services. Even if a word or phrase is unambiguously a protected trademark, there are still allowable uses, most notably to designate the product, service, or company associated with the trademark. For example, if someone wants to tell a story about a bottle of Coca Cola (or even to claim &quot;our product is better than Coca Cola&quot;), the owner of the Coca Cola trademark cannot use trademark protection to prevent them from using the phrase &quot;Coca Cola&quot; in the story (or to make the claim). For a specific opinion about a specific use of a specific trademark, you should engage a qualified lawyer with experience in trademark law.
Registering the text string Starbucks" should prevent anyone else using it in any font for related products. However, I do not think it is useful against "Startducks" that is printed in the standard logo in Starbucks green. With the stylized version, you cover things that misleadingly look like what you see on a Starbucks building.
Trademarks protect against consumer confusion. Ask yourself if a consumer seeing that image with the &quot;studio&quot; portion removed might think that the altered image represents the same company as the original image. Of course, the answer will be &quot;yes.&quot; But in the end it also depends on how the trademark is used. You've used the original image in the question; have you violated the trademark? No. Do you violate Tesco's trademark when you say &quot;I went shopping at Tesco&quot;? No. Do you violate their trademark when you sell food using the name &quot;Tesco&quot;? Yes. A distinctive graphic design such as this will also be protected by copyright, so you will also have to consider whether your intended use infringes copyright.