Does Tesla or Nikola have grounds to sue the other for trademark infringement? Tesla and Nikola are both companies that produce electric vehicles, and both companies are named after the inventor Nikola Tesla. It seems to me that this could cause confusion. Does either company have grounds to sue the other for trademark infringement?
It wouldn't be frivolous, but I doubt either party could prevail in a trademark suit The test to use for trademark infringement is a set of factors known as the Lapp factors. Per A&amp;H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000): [L]ikelihood of confusion for both competing and noncompeting goods should be tested with reference to the following: the degree of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark; the strength of the owner's mark; the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; the evidence of actual confusion; whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the same; the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture both products, or expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant's market, or expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant's market. Let's take a few of these. the degree of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark Low, but non-zero. They're facially completely dissimilar: the words sound and look nothing alike, and their logos are completely different as well in both design and color. The only similarity is that they are both parts of Nikola Tesla's name. The USPTO gives as an example &quot;LUPO&quot; and &quot;WOLF&quot; being similar, &quot;because, when the Italian word 'LUPO' is translated into English, it means 'WOLF.'&quot; However, in that example, the words have identical meaning in different languages. Overall, this seems to weigh against infringement, as neither company is associated with the actual person, and Nikola is a common given name. the strength of the owner's mark Tesla's is quite strong: they're quite prominent. Nikola probably less so. Would weigh in favor of Tesla in a suit. the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase Extremely high: the Tesla and Nikola trucks start at ~$40k and $60k, respectively. This weighs against infringement, as consumers are unlikely to make such an expensive purchase hastily. the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark Both chose the mark to pay homage to Nikola Tesla. Per the same case, &quot;defendant's intent will indicate a likelihood of confusion only if an intent to confuse consumers is demonstrated via purposeful manipulation of the junior mark to resemble the senior's.&quot; None appears clear here, which does not support infringment. the evidence of actual confusion I couldn't quickly find any. I'm sure a lawyer would search more thoroughly, but this seems to weigh against infringement. whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the same These are probably pretty similar. Would weigh in favor of infringement. As with any balancing test, it's a bit of a guessing game how a court would weigh the factors, but given the low similarity, high price, and lack of evidence of actual confusion, I find it unlikely that a court would find either party has infringed the other's trademark.
united-states I am going to answer based on US law. But many of the principles would be similar in many other countries. In particular the law in the EU is similar. There are two separate issues here, trademark rights and copyright. Trademark Rights Trademark law provides protection against the use of the mark &quot;in commerce&quot;. This means using the mark to identify or advertise goods or services. It does not provide any protection against use not in commerce. Specifically 15 USC 1114 (part of the Lanham Act, the main US Federal trademark law) provides, in relevant part: (1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant— (1) (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or (1) (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. If the plane was being used commercially, using someone else's trademark would be infringement and could lead to a successful infringement suit. But if it is not being used to provide or advertise a service or goodsm there is no trademark issue. Copyright 17 USC 106 specifies the exclusive rights that a copyright owner has. One is to make copies, another is to make derivative works. Unless fair use (or fair dealing in the UK) applies, one needs permission from the copyright owner. Without such permission, copying is infringement, and can lead to an award of damages. However, according to the question, the image has been released under a CC-BY-NC license. That grants permission, under certain conditions. One condition is that the image (or text) not be used for commercial purposes. If the plane is purely private, not rente out, these conditions seem to be complied with, so there is no copyright issue either. Conclusion Based on the statements in the question, there seems to br no IP issue here. Be sure that there is no commercial purpose, and that the CC license was issued by the actual copyright owner. A brief consultatuion with a lawyer might be wise.
It's more likely a trademark problem than copyright but it's not easy to identify which legal theory the mark owner would use to enforce compliance with their rules. My first thought was initial interest confusion. But if a person sees the logo what are they going to confuse it with? It's not a typical case where an infringing competitor uses the other's trademark to confuse buyers into buying the infringer's goods. Perhaps if buyers are confused they might NOT click a link because they don't recognize it. In this case Facebook loses a click. But they don't have a right that click so that's a stretch also. The misuse they claim is probably dilution. If someone makes a particularly crappy modification it could be argued that this tarnishes the brand. No confusion is needed for dilution, all that is required is that the mark must be "famous" and used by the infringer in way that causes the dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark. This is known as tarnishment. Tarnishment occurs when the plaintiff's trademark is likened to products of low quality, or is portrayed in a negative context. Deere &amp; Co. v. MTD Prods., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir. 1994). See Louis Vuitton vs Chewy Vuiton where Louis Vittuon lost when Chewy Vuiton got summary judgment. ...the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)... provides that the owner of a famous mark can enjoin "another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark. But the Supreme Court has held that the dilution statute "unambiguously requires a showing of actual dilution, rather than a likelihood of dilution." Moseley v. Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 433, 123 S. Ct. 1115, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2003) So this requires that messing with logos actually diminishes a brand and that the company can prove it. I don't know of a case where any of these social media companies tried to enforce their rules. I came across a few blog posts about these rules indicating that the authors had contacted the companies, asking about enforcement theories; no social media company had replied to any of those bloggers.
If you dispute the assertion, yes At this point the company has made an unevidenced assertion. You can either accept that assertion or dispute it. The exact dispute resolution terms will matter if you do dispute it but, notwithstanding, they will all necessitate that each party provide some evidence to support their position. That will either convince the decision maker (you in a negotiation or mediation; someone else in an arbitration or court) or it won’t. In a determinative forum like an arbitration or court since they are relying on the assertion, they have the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, they would have to prove the transformer failed, that it failed because of the weather and that that event falls within the scope of the specific force majeure clause.
No. The Creative Commons license seeks to promote recognition of the original author's work through attribution, but does not provide the same framework for enforcement that the DMCA would. The proper approach in cases such as the deleted Wikipedia article and subsequent reuse would be to provide a courteous notice to Wikipedia of your original publication and ask to be listed as the original author or be provided attribution. In the absence of relief there, then what rights you have would be determined by the Wikipedia Terms of Service. Since, and I am assuming here, that you are not generating billions of dollars on the original publication in royalties, seeking to bring a DMCA type enforcement on a Wikipedia article dispute would be like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. (or more commonly in divorce, two people having hearing and spending thousands of dollars on attorney's fees fighting over a blender -- they are free to do it, but they would have been much better off buying 500 new blenders...) Keeping perspective and providing a courteous letter is probably your most cost efficient first step in situations like this. And in all areas of law, just remember, you catch more flies with honey than you do with salt. (meaning taking the courteous approach usually affords better results than a scalding letter breathing hell-fire and brimstone) In followup to earlier comment: Presuming you would be covered by the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Copyright of 1996 (as a U.S. Citizen you would be), and your copyright is on file with the United States Copyright Offices (same presumption) as prerequisite to suit, then there is nothing that prevents you from invoking the protections under general copyright law and under the DMCA (inlcuding the Takedown provisions). Note: these are not the only prerequisites to taking action, but instead the minimum critera to qualify, and note this does not pass on the wisdom of doing so (there are often significant consequences to improperly invoking previsions of certain acts).
If you are Donald Trump posting under an assumed name then it is illegal, because he is currently president of the USA and not supposed to run any businesses. If you are not Donald Trump, then be aware that Donald Trump owns a trademark for "Donald Trump" according to this site https://onlinetrademarkattorneys.com/donald-trump-trademarks/ so you will be infringing on his trademark.
That is not at all what USPTO is telling you. Courts do not simply "dismiss" patents - that isn't a terminology you'd ever see used for a patent that was found to be invalid. Timeline of events: United Industries Corporation brought a suit against the owner of the patent, claiming unpatentability. That case went to trial, and the court found the claim to be invalid and that UIC failed to show unpatentability. UIC appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case because both parties agreed to its dismissal (it's possible they reached some external agreement we don't know about). As far as I can tell, at this moment, the patent is active.
Say I wrote a spy novel, in which some character refers to my protagonist as &quot;Mr Bond&quot; suggesting that he thinks of himself as a &quot;master spy&quot; like the movie character. Would that infringe a trademark on &quot;James Bond&quot; (assuming, for the moment that that name is trademarked)? No it would not. Or suppose my main character mentions having met Bond years ago during training, or on a previous mission. Would that infringe? Again, No. Or suppose I write a brief, one-paragraph walk-on scene in which the James Bond character appears? Infringement? Again, no. Or suppose my spy character is waiting for a meeting, and stops for a meal, and i mention that he has a Coke. Would that infringe the trademark on Cocacola? No it would not. All of these are forms of nominative use, and none of them are &quot;uses in commerce&quot;, so there is no trademark liability. (Interestingly, there was a series of stories set in an alternate world, written by Randall Garrett in the 1960s-90s. Some of these are spy stories, and his major spy character is &quot;Sir James le Lien&quot; Now a &quot;lien&quot; is a French-derived legal term for a secured debt. The most common English-derived term for a (slightly differently) secured debt is &quot;bond&quot;. No one ever tried to sue Garrett for trademark infringement.) The game &quot;Cards Against Humanity&quot; includes, as I understand, many brief references to real-world and fictional things and characters, some of which are trademarked. But none of these uses are &quot;in commerce&quot; and no reasonable person would be confused into thinking that the game was sponsored or endorsed by any of the trademark holders, nor are these trademarks being used to promote or advertise anything. So, No infringement. Now if the game were advertised as &quot;The only card game to feature super-spy James Bond&quot;, that might well be infringement. at least a case could be made for infringement then. But as it stands? I don't think so. Also, use of the R-in-a-circle symbol is totally optional when one makes nominative use of someone else's trademark. It can help, along with a disclaimer, to make the point that the user is not claiming ownership. Something like: {X}® and {Y}TM are trademarks of {Z-corp}. They are used here to refer to {Z-corp}'s products. The use here is in no way approved of by Z-corp, nor does Z-corp endorse, sponsor, or recommend this product. No ownership of these trademarks is claimed. However such a disclaimer is not in any way required, any more than the ® symbol is. One exception, if a trademark is used with permission, the owner may make use of the ® symbol a condition of the permission.