Can pricing be trademarked? This earlier question asked whether a pricing scheme could be copyrighted. I wonder if pricing could be trademarked. Suppose Christopher Columbus Pizza was famous for selling a large pizza for $14.92. Can they obtain a trademark on $14.92 to prevent competitors from also advertising their pizzas for the same price and confusing customers as to the quality or source?
No An actual price is merely descriptive, amd cannot be a trademark, any more that "computer" can be for a PC. A phrase including a price could be a trademark. Once upon a time, Pepsi used the slogan "Twice as much for a nickel too" which ws, or may have been, a trademark. They hypothetical Christopher Columbus Pizza could use a phrase such as 'A new world of flavor for only $14.92", but not, I think, the price alone.
There are several things going on with Akinator and their use of trademarked names and characters. If you look at akinator.com Legal Notices it says: 2 – Copyright – Reproduction rights All the content of this site falls under French and international legislation on copyright and intellectual property. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part of this website, in any form or by any means is strictly prohibited without prior authorisation of the publications director. All products and trademarks mentioned are property of their respective owners. (emphasis mine) The fact that they mention that all trademarks belong to their respective owners is good, but it's a formality. What it appears the site really relies on for use of trademarked characters is what's called Nominative Use, which is a type of "trademark fair use." The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use Akinator has to use the names and trademarks to identify those names and trademarks. Akinator could possibly be sued to establish their type of fair use is not valid in their case, but it's probably not worth it for the companies to pursue. And, most companies would rather people use and see their trademarks in a marketing and money-making fair use sense rather than sue to stop their use. See In the US, when is fair use a defense to copyright infringement? for a full description of Fair Use. Now, when you get to the "answer" part of the game, you will see a "copyright" link. Part of that resulting page says Displayed pictures are accessible from the web. It is Elokence's policy to respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable international intellectual property law and make the necessary changes. In respect of Elokence's Intellectual Property Policy, Elokence operates a complaints procedure accessible via the form below. So the company has given itself a further bit of protection by only using images on the web they can link to (at least in the web browser game; I don't know about the App), so that means the image is already "out there", uploaded by someone else, and Akinator can claim they didn't upload it. And, further, there is a contact form for trademark holders to send DMCA takedown notices for their work. It's a belt and suspenders approach to the use of trademarks in their game.
Yes, this could become an issue Trademark infringement occurs when you use another’s trademark in a way that could cause confusion to the consumer. Is it possible that people will be confused that your company produced a game of the same name? Yes. Is that trademark infringement? Possibly. Would a company like Bethesda take you to court to find out? Possibly. Can you avoid this risk by choosing a different name? Yes. Does this cost anything? No, as a new business your ‘brand’ has zero value right now. Should you choose a new name? Well, it’s your business - make a business decision.
A business is free to set its pricing model in whatever way it chooses, unless there is a specific law restring this. As no country or jurisdiction is mentioned in the question, there is no way to judge if some specific law applies. (In the US that would probably be a matter of state law.) A business could set its prices at 10 per user, but with a Minimum charge of 100 if it chose to do it that way. It is up to a potential customer to decide if this is a fair price or not. As long as the price plan was disclosed in advance, the customer has no ground for a legal complaint. The customer could always ask the business to change its policy, but there would be no legal duty to make a change.
There would be both copyright and trademark issues here. See U.S. Trademark Law - USPTO for law adn rules of practice related to US trademarks. See 17 USC for US copyright law. Trademark &quot;Monopoly&quot; is, I understand, protected as a trademark for a board game. It is currently owned by Hasbro. Any name which would be likely to confuse reasonable people into falsely thinking that the new game was authored or approved by the makers of the game Monopoly, or came from those makers would be trademark infringement (unless done by permission). However, a name can allude to another name as long as no market confusion nor any dilution results. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1066 a mark which is &quot;likely when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the applicant to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.&quot; may be grounds for an interference which can prevent registration of the newer mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1125 provides that: (a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— (a) (1) (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (a) (1) (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. ... (c) Dilution by Blurring; Dilution by Tarnishment.-- (c) (1) Injunctive relief.--Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury. (c) (2) Definitions.--(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following: (c) (2) (A) (1) (i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties. (c) (2) (A) (1) (ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark. (c) (2) (A) (1) (iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark. (c) (2) (A) (1) (iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. (c) (2) (B) For purposes of paragraph (1), `dilution by blurring' is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following: (c) (2) (B) (i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark. (c) (2) (B) (ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark. (c) (2) (B) (iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark. (c) (2) (B) (iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark. (c) (2) (B) (v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark. (c) (2) (B) (vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark. The word &quot;Monopoly&quot; as applied to games surely counts as a &quot;famous martk&quot; an so one must avoid confusion as well as &quot;Dilution by Blurring&quot;. A game called &quot;New Monopoly&quot; is obviously intended to refer or allude to the existing game. Moreover it seems &quot;intended to create an association with the famous mark&quot; Such a mark might well constitute Dilution by Blurring. It might be wise to choose a name that is not as similar to the trademarked game, and is not as clearly and directly associated with the existing game. It might be wise to consult an experienced trademark lawyer as to whether any such name was close enough to an existing mark, particularly a famous one, to run a risk of a dilution or an infringement action. One should note that a clear disclaimer, stating that a game is not affiliate with an existing game (or other product), and is not a product of that game's owners, nor approved or sponsored by those owners, can help avoid an infringement or dilution action. Previous Suit According to the Wikipedia article, &quot;Monopoly (game)&quot; (citations omitted): Economics professor Ralph Anspach published Anti-Monopoly in 1973, and was sued for trademark infringement by Parker Brothers in 1974. The case went to trial in 1976. Anspach won on appeals in 1979, as the 9th Circuit Court determined that the trademark Monopoly was generic and therefore unenforceable. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing the appellate court ruling to stand. This decision was overturned by the passage of Public Law 98-620 in 1984. With that law in place, Parker Brothers and its parent company, Hasbro, continue to hold valid trademarks for the game Monopoly. However, Anti-Monopoly was exempted from the law and Anspach later reached a settlement with Hasbro and markets his game under license from them Copyright The concepts and procedures of a game, the so-called &quot;game mechanics&quot; cannot be protected by copyright. Specifically 17 USC 102(b) provides that: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. So having a game in which tokens representing players move around a board, buying and selling properties, paying and collecting rents, and so on, is not protected by copyright. The artwork of any of the various editions of Monopoly would be protected by copyright, and may not be copied or imitated without permission. The layout of the board might be protected, depending on how original it is judged to be. However, the original version on Monopoly called The landlord's Game dates from 1903, and any copyright in it has expired. Only new, original elements first published in 1925 or later would still be protected by copyright. Most of the layout elements are probably now in the public domain. Visual elements of modern editions may well still be under copyright. Conclusion Creation a new game that has some resemblance to Monopoly can probably be done without infringing any IP rights, but care would need to be taken to make it visually distinctive from any protected edition of the game. A name thatr was not similar enough to the existign name to involved &quot;blurring&quot; the existing trademark would need to be chosen. I am doubtful if &quot;New Monopoly&quot; is sufficiently distinctive.
It depends on the game and what you copy. Games are an utter nightmare when it comes to IP law as so many parts of them cannot be copyrighted. Game rules for example cannot be copyrighted, nor can the concept itself. Some things can be copyrighted or trademarked. You cannot use the following: Names Written elements- while the rules themselves can't be copyrighted, rulebooks can Artwork and other visual elements Miniatures designed for the game Original characters Try to avoid these and the Hasbro lawyers should leave you alone.
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.
The word "use", for purposes of trademark law, is a term of art meaning it is used in a way that may be a violation of law if not licensed. Not all uses of trademarks are violations. Similarly, there is a difference between using the name of a company and the brand of products or services sold by that company. In any case, using a trademark or trade name to REFERENCE a company or brand is not a trademark infringement. For instance, I don't need any license to tell you that I own a Dell or HP or Apple product, or that my software will run on a Dell or HP or Apple product. The use of a logo is, however, more sensitive and likely to require detailed legal analysis, if not an actual license.