Does alternate spelling provide sufficient differentiation to avoid trademark infringement? In Australia, one infringes on another's trademark if: The sign1 is substantially identical or deceptively similar or: The goods or services are closely related or in the same description or: The trade mark is “well known” Question Would a company be infringing on another's trademark if it had the same business name but for one character? Assumptions Please assume: the companies have completely different logos the companies both sell assorted general-purpose products (like in a department store) the difference in names is from either the omission, addition, or replacement of one character the names are phonetically identical, despite the different spelling 1 I think 'Sign' means 'logo'.
I think you will find that &quot;sign&quot; here means &quot;mark&quot; and includes a word, a phrase, or a logo, or a combination of any of these. Indeed section 6 of the act defines this: &quot;sign&quot; includes the following or any combination of the following, namely, any letter, word, name, signature, numeral, device, brand, heading, label, ticket, aspect of packaging, shape, colour, sound or scent. The main test is whether the two marks are &quot;confusingly similar&quot; or whether prospective customers are likely to be confused into thinking that one seller is actually the other, or into attributing to one the goodwill or reputation of the other. (This standard is much the same under US law or the laws of a good many other countries.) This is a very fact-intensive determination, and is to some extent a judgement call. But a difference in one letter only, with little or no difference in sound, might well be sufficiently similar to cause confusion. Note that section 10 of the law defines this: For the purposes of this Act, a trade mark is taken to be deceptively similar to another trade mark if it so nearly resembles that other trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion, and thus this might well be a case of infringement. Note that for infringement to be found, in addition to the marks being &quot;deceptively similar&quot;, the goods or services must also be similar or in the same category, (or goods &quot;closely related&quot; to protected services or vice versa) unless the mark being infringed on is &quot;well known&quot;.
It's best to use formal names in legal documents. For example, Ringo Starr's musical compositions are credited to Richard Starkey. If you have a business that wishes to do business under a name other than its legal name, you can investigate d/b/a (&quot;doing business as&quot;) designation. For the purpose of a single contract or other document, you can usually include language that designates a name for the business such as &quot;this agreement is between Full Name Incorporation, Inc, hereinafter known as Trademark®, and....&quot; You shouldn't do any of this in real life, however, without first discussing it with your lawyer. If you believe that there is business value in calling your company &quot;Foo&quot; when its actual name is &quot;Bar Corp,&quot; then surely that value warrants some expense to find a lawyer who will defend the validity of the company's contracts in court, should that become necessary.
Anyone seriously planning on doing this or anything like it would be well advised to consult a good trademark lawyer with the specifics. Specifics will matter in such a case. That said: Under US trademark law, the key question is whether a reasonable person would be confused into assuming that there is some connection, and that the new firm could be relied on based on the reputation of the old one. if so, this is a trademark infringement unless permission is obtained from the trademark holder (not likely to be granted). Since "orbitz" is a coined term its protection is stronger, there is no natural object or concept this can refer to. "AppleMoving" is less likely to be confused with "Apple Computers" because apples are real things and need not refer to computers. The likelihood of confusion depends on the specific facts of an individual case. Note also that trademark protection is a matter of private civil lawsuits. If orbitz didn't choose to sue for whatever reason, nothing would have stopped OrbitzMoving.
Under United States law: Using a trademark solely to refer to files compatible with a trademarked program would be allowed under the doctrine of nominative fair use. The Ninth Circuit sets out the three-part test for nominative fair use in New Kids on the Block v. New America Pub, 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992): &quot;[T]he product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark&quot; &quot;[O]nly so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service&quot; &quot;[T]he user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.&quot; Simply referring to the name of a trademarked program to describe its file format (and not doing so in a way that suggests &quot;sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder,&quot; such as slapping a &quot;Certified Adobe Photoshop Compatible&quot; sticker on the box or something like that) would meet these requirements. The International Trademark Association elaborates a bit on the doctrine and gives some examples here.
Yes, they can be. In the example given in the question, there is an additional factor which is that the possibly-infringing company is in a different line of business, which means that it might be possible to use the exact same name without infringing trademark. For example, there are Dove soap and Dove chocolate. (This possibility is probably more remote with a distinctive, novel name such as YouTube.) Trademark protection is supposed to prevent others from confusing consumers. For example, if the graphic design or other branding of the hypothetical youtub were sufficiently similar to that of YouTube that consumers might actually think that YouTube had branched out into the plumbing fixtures industry, then a court would likely find trademark infringement. (Such elements are often protected trademarks in their own right, of course, independent of the world mark; for example, UPS has trademarked "the color brown" in connection with package delivery services.) If a company started using the youtub brand to host and serve digitized video recordings, a finding of infringement is more likely still, even in the absence of other similarities. This would be especially true if it appeared that the name had been chosen explicitly to draw customers from the YouTube site, and that would probably be fairly easy to demonstrate in court.
Yes, the SFC doesn't allow the usage of the term "git" for third-party products unless they have their permisison. From the Git Trademark Policy, 2.3 Prohibited usages of the Marks: In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service without Conservancy's written permission. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.
As usual with trademarks, the key question is "will reasonable people be confused about the source or affiliations of the product or service". Trademarks are, as you already know, limited to a particular industry or area of business, in general. Displaying user videos is not exactly the same thing as a particular popular song, but they just might be close enough for some consumer confusion tom occur. Whether reasonable people are in fact confused into thinking that the app is in some way sponsored by the makers of the song is a question of fact. A trademark suit would probably need to present some sort of evidence that confusion had occurred or was likely. It also may make a difference whether "Tik Tok" has been registered as a trademark. In the US, registration gets greater protection than mere use. (In some countries there is no protection without registration.) It is also possible that the app has already licensed the rights to the term from the trademark owner for the song. This would avoid a potential suit. It is also worth noting that the term "Tik Tok" is not original with the song. It dates back, in that spelling, to at least the "Oz" books by L. Frank Baum and others Tik-Tok of Oz dates from 1914, and the character of the Tik-Tok from the book Ozma of Oz (1907). Terms that are not original coinages are less strongly protected in trademark law, and the app could claim to be alluding to the Oz character, not the more recent song. A comment by ub3rst4r says that: the term "Tik Tok" is registered as a trademark in the USA by "Bytedance Ltd" (which is the company that operates the app). If that is correct, the US Patent and Trademark office (PTO) came to at least a preliminary conclusion that this trademark did not infringe anyone else's trademark. That doesn't meant that an infringement suit is doomed, but it would make any such suit harder and less likely. It seems that, as described in this news story a company selling watchs under the name "Tic Tok" was sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of the singer Kesha Sebert. The firm responded by filing a suit for a declaratory judgement. The case is Wimo Labs LLC v. Kesha Sebert, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:11-cv-02978. However, google does not show any resolution of this case, one way or the other. This was brought to my attention in a comment by StephanS. As this docket record shows, the case was dismissed by agreement without prejudice, apparently after a settlement (as stated in the comment by user muru). Thus there was no ruling on the merits of the case.
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.