Use of Microsoft Trademark in Product Name I am developing Add-Ins that extend Microsoft Office applications with additional functionality. As such, I am looking for product names to advertise these Add-Ins. Here's a very crude example of two such Add-In names/logos - one for Project and one for Outlook [LOGO] MyBrandName &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for Project® [LOGO] MyBrandName &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for Outlook® The first line is in large typeface and not using Microsoft's logos or anything like that. That said, the [for ProductName®] will be written in a small box that is roughly in the color of that product (i.e. a blue for Outlook; but not the exact same color code). I had a read through Microsoft's brand/trademark use guidelines: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/general.aspx You may not: use the trademarks in the name of your business, product, service, app, domain name, social media account, or other offering This is pretty clear. But the "App Guidelines" state: Your registered publisher name and everything about your app—name, logo, description, screenshots—must be unique and free of Microsoft trademarks unless (1) you’ve secured permission from Microsoft through a license or equivalent (though such licenses are not generally available in this context); or (2) you’re only using a Microsoft trademark (not including logos) to describe that your product is designed to work in conjunction with a Microsoft product or service and as long as your app logo and/or name (1) does not suggest/give the impression your app is actually published by, affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft; and (2) denotes your own unique brand so as to clearly signal to users that there is no affiliation or endorsement by Microsoft. Now things are less clear. My only reason for the use of "Outlook" or "Project" as a small component of the logo's subtitle and product name is to signal to users its compatibility with said Office products. Of course, YANAL, but perhaps someone has some additional insights to share. I know that many businesses use this type of naming convention in marketing their products as being part of and extending the Office eco-system. I might add that these Add-Ins are intended to be commercial and that none of Microsoft's trademarks are used in domain names - just as a small addition below the logo as outlined above. The website, "About Dialog" and so forth, will all state that: Microsoft, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Project and the Office logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. Microsoft is not affiliated with [MyBrandName] and does not endorse this product. With the exact trademarks listed as here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/trademarks/en-us.aspx Question: is this use of Microsoft trademarks allowable? I appreciate that, unless an authoritative source can be found that pertains to Office Add-Ins specifically, it may be hard/impossible to definitively answer questions around the legality of this. If that is the case, perhaps someone can share some guidance around acceptable use and likelihood of Microsoft not taking kindly to a situation like this. With Office Add-Ins, the situation is such that they benefit the Office platform as a whole - after all, Microsoft has invested significant resources in opening-up its platform via the VSTO/Add-In API. Personally, I imagine no issues as long as such Add-Ins/products make it clear that they are not affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft, and as long as such Add-Ins have their own brand identity that is clearly distinguished from that of Microsoft/Office (although they refer to specific Microsoft products as a means of signalling compatibility; like many Add-In developers already do). Add to that the fact that Microsoft's "App Guidelines" make this exact same point - just that these guidelines refer to "Apps" (probably Windows Universal Platform Apps) and not Office Add-Ins. Sub-question: can you imagine a worse scenario than Microsoft sending a Cease and Desist notice? In that case, I can imagine re-branding to "MYBRAND for E-Mail" as the logo/name and a textual reference to "The [MyBrand for E-Mail] Add-In for Microsoft® Outlook®.". If there is any potential of this constituting an infringement on Microsoft's trademarks, I will rather re-brand (before going live) my Add-Ins to "MyBrand for E-Mail", but would still like to use textual references to "[MyBrand for E-Mail] - the team management Add-In for Microsoft® Outlook®." (with the usual trademark disclaimer "[...] not affiliated with/endorsed by [...]" in the footer). Would this constitute an infringement?
Rather than saying "for Project®" which might fairly be interpreted to indicate an affiliation with Microsoft, you ought to say something like "intended to be compatible with Project® (not affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft)." can you imagine a worse scenario than Microsoft sending a Cease and Desist notice? In that case, I can imagine re-branding to "MYBRAND for E-Mail" as the logo/name and a textual reference to "The [MyBrand for E-Mail] Add-In for Microsoft® Outlook®.". What is the worst case scenario? You could be sued by Microsoft for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and if you lost, forced to change your product name and to destroy all existing inventory, forced to disgorge all profits you have ever made from selling your product ever, forced to pay their attorneys' fees and costs (which won't be cheap) in addition to your own legal team, have your products seized and destroyed when imported by customs agents follow an ex parte court hearing (i.e. one you had no notice of) secretly brought by Microsoft, and forced to pay punitive damages equal to double the profits you made in addition to the profits themselves. You might not even be able to discharge the judgment against you by going bankrupt and the punitive damages would probably not be tax deductible. Microsoft has every right to do this even if you fully comply with their cease and desist letter. A criminal trademark prosecution would be unlikely in this fact pattern.
First, &quot;I've seen some people say it is legal to do so but I want a second opinion.&quot; This is not a legal opinion. This is only in response to the question &quot;Can you use (TM) on a product that is not Trademarked&quot;? Second, you did not specify a jurisdiction. Since you mentioned Apple, I will assume USA. tl/dr: Yes, you can used the TM mark and no, it is not fraudulent. In the USA, there are three &quot;trademark&quot; symbols, (R), (TM), and (SM). (R) - (Registered) The federal registration symbol. This may be used only once the mark is actually registered in the USPTO. It my not be used while the application is pending. (TM) - (Trademark) / (SM) - (Service Mark) - According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office: If you claim rights to use a mark, you may use the &quot;TM&quot; (trademark) or &quot;SM&quot; (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim of a &quot;common-law&quot; mark. No registration is necessary to use a &quot;TM&quot; or &quot;SM&quot; symbol and you may continue to use these symbols even if the USPTO refuses to register your mark. Those symbols put people on notice that you claim rights in the mark, although common law doesn't give you all the rights and benefits of federal registration.
I see no reason to doubt your conclusion; since it's not allowed by the license it's forbidden by copyright. As you figured it, you gain the right to use these tools by obtaining one of those 3 Visual Studio licenses. A Visual Studio Code license is free, so it makes business sense that it doesn't include a license for Microsoft C++ Build Tools. I.e. you can't claim it's an "obvious oversight", as there's a justifiable business reason.
Yes, that's true Common words are not trademarkable, as is a descriptive phrase, because a trademark needs to be distinctive. As the Netherland Trademark Office tells you, your mark can't fit in any of these categories: literal - Your tradename or logo must not literal describe or depict your goods or services. promotion - The trademark must amount to more than a value judgment alone. misleading They even have an FAQ about that! The trademark is descriptive - which is the most common reason. A trademark is descriptive when it describes the properties of the product or service or promotes these. For example: the words 'super fast bike' for the product category 'bicycles'. Please note: the wording here is not always in common usage. The trademark 'medi' is not listed in the dictionary as a common abbreviation for 'medical'. All the same, it is a common designation that consumers will understand right away in the discriptive sense. So, this type of trademark could also be descriptive and hence declined. Computerrepair is a literal description of what the business does, just like Biomild on a mild biological yogurt just describes it.
In the US, trademarks do not need to be registered. The owner of the mark can sue in state court for infringement of the trademark without ever registering. However, there is increased protection and specific benefits to registration. The US Patent and Trademark office (USPTP) PDF publication Basic facts About Trademarks says (on pages 10-11): In the United States, parties are not required to register their marks to obtain protectable rights. You can establish “common law” rights in a mark based solely on use of the mark in Principal Register provides a number of significant advantages over common law rights alone, including: • A legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration (whereas a state registration only provides rights within the borders of that one state, and common law rights exist only for the specific area where the mark is used); • Public notice of your claim of ownership of the mark; • Listing in the USPTO’s online databases; • The ability to record the U.S. registration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods; • The right to use the federal registration symbol “®”; • The ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court; and *The use of the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries. The USPTO is supported in part by fees from trademark applications, and obviously wants to promote registration. Registration involves fees, and time and expense in preparing the application. It often involves the services of a trademark lawyer. Many businesses find nit worthwhile. Whether it is a good idea for a particular business is an individual, fact-based, business decision, and I cannot advise on it.
You would want to establish trademark protection on the phrase "Ball Cube": copyright is not generally a good way to protect names or other short phrases. See, for example, Can I copyright the name of my band? from the U. S. Copyright Office, which notes that "names are not protected by copyright law." Furthermore, you're interested in preventing others from selling a similar object using a similar name, and that's precisely what trademark protection is for. The ball cube design would potentially be eligible for copyright protection, but you should be aware that this protection would not extend to elements of its design that originated in Rubik's Cube, because your design would be a derivative work.
This is fine. You can use initials, shortened names, common nicknames (Bob/Robert), omit middle names, and so forth without causing yourself any problems. Things can get more complicated if you sign by a name that is different from names that you normally use elsewhere - such as if you are called Christopher Smith and you sign as Donald Jones, having not used that name before - but there's no fundamental difference of principle. One example case is Scott v Soans [1802] 102 ER 539, where the defendant John Soans objected to the suit being made against &quot;Jonathan otherwise John Soans&quot;. The Lord Chief Justice ruled that &quot;Jonathan otherwise John&quot; could be his name, and that if he'd signed a contract using that name then &quot;what objection could be made to it?&quot; There are several other similar cases from past centuries, some of which may no longer be reliable law since they turn on points of procedure that aren't relevant today, but the general thrust is that if you sign a contract under a certain name, then you can be sued under that name. (And you can sue other people using whatever name you like.) Mistakes in names can be corrected as part of the general process of contractual interpretation, called &quot;rectification&quot;. This more often arises when dealing with company names, say when there are a half dozen closely linked companies with related names, and the issue is which one of them is actually meant to be named; there are some recent cases of this kind, such as Liberty Mercian Ltd v Cuddy Civil Engineering Ltd [2013] EWHC 2688 (TCC). Generally speaking, as Lord Denning said in Nittan v Solent Steel [1980] EWCA Civ J1023-4, We do not allow people to take advantage of a misnomer when everyone knows what was intended. Further, the doctrine of &quot;estoppel by convention&quot; means that if you sign a contract under whatever name, then act as if you were bound by the contract, you can't then wriggle out of it on the grounds that the name is not really your own. In Scots law, which includes certain doctrines imported from Roman civil law, there is a distinction between error in persona and error in nomine. The former means that you were mistaken about who your counterparty really was (such that you wouldn't have made the contract had you known the truth) and the latter means that you had the intended person but made a mistake about their name. The law of error in Scotland is not quite the same as in England and Wales, but in this case it gets to the same basic result: if you agreed on who was to be bound, that's what matters, regardless of the names used.
You can, and many authors and other creators of fiction do, use the names of real newspapers, real brands and products, and real people without obtaining permission from anyone. As long as those names are not being used to market or identify goods or services, the use cannot be trademark infringement. There idea that you cannot &quot;defame the brans&quot; is in fact much narrower than many people think, and than it used to be. Particularly in the united-states free speech rights often supersede protections against so-called trademark &quot;defamation&quot;. In the US all of the examples in the answer by Jack Edwards would be clearly legal, an they probably would be in many other countries as well, if they appeared in a work that was clearly fictional. If a work mof fiction uses the name of a real person, and other identifying details that make it clear just which real person is being mentioned, and if statements that seem to be statements of fact, not opinion are made about that person, and if those statements are false and negative, and if a hypothetical reasonable person would believe that those statements are about the real person, not a fictional person, thereby harming that person's reputation, then if all that is true, the person might have a valid claim of defamation.