How to establish a legal basis for exclusive use of names like Champagne I heard that the name Champagne can be used only for sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region in France and recognized by an association there, and that it is prohibited to call other sparkling wine as Champagne. What is the legal basis for this, and how can one establish a similar privilege, say in USA, EU, and other countries? Is it a registered trademark like Doritos, and is it the same thing as no other chips than those produced by that company can be called Doritos? If I register 'Sake' as a trademark for a type of alcoholic beverage produced in Odaiba region in Japan, will other producers outside of that region prohibited to call their sake as sake any more? I guess such registration will be rejected, but then what happened in the case of Champagne? What happened to the Champagne producers outside Champagne then?
Names like Champagne, Roquefort, Parmigiano-Reggiano and Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena have a special status under EU law, that these are Protected Designations of Origin, which states standards for the product and gives legal protection regarding use of the name. That limits what you can call "Roquefort" in the EU. These restrictions have not been legally relevant in the US and are still fairly widely ignored especially in the case of Champagne, although Parmigiano-Reggiano and Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena are not used as generic terms as Champagne or Asiago are. Violations in the EU may involve charges of counterfeiting, false advertising, or fraud. The essence of PDO designation is that it describes a product that is traditionally and wholely made in a geographic region and where the character of the product derives from that region (e.g. the grass that the cows eat). This protection does not operate in the US or Japan (as far as I can tell). There are some specific agreements between the EU and particular countries such as a wine and spirits agreement with South Africa, but PDO really only operates within the EU. Otherwise, the applicable concept is "trademark". You could not register a trademark for "Champagne" in the US, because that is a generic term, but you could coin a new term like "Gorgonzeddar" for a greenish-orange cheese, and register it. From what I can determine about Japanese trademark law, you similarly could not register "Sake" as the name of a rice-based drink, since it is a general term. If you had an unused name that you want to protect, you can register a trademark, and you would need to register that trademark in every country of interest.
What are our possibilities here? You could be sued for damages in Mexico, the country of origin of the copyright or any of the other signatories of the Berne Convention. You could also be charged with a criminal offence but that is less likely. how much can we get away with? Not a legal question. What you are proposing is illegal - how likely your getaway plan is to work is not for me to say. Is there any advantage on us being on México? No Is there any advantage on picking any either Dragon Ball or League of legends because of the country they are in? No Can they stop us from doing it? Yes
The legal standard, evaluated on a case by case basis, when one firm uses a trademark that is similar to another firm's trademarks to market its goods or services in the same industry is whether the trademark is &quot;confusingly similar&quot; and in some cases whether it &quot;dilutes&quot; the first in time famous trademark. Many people writing fictional media, or making academic hypotheticals, make changes to an existing famous mark along the lines of those described in the question, in the hope of making a popular culture reference, while avoiding a feared exposure to trademark infringement and defamation liability. But that fear is mostly misguided. A trademark is not a right to have monopoly use of the mark in writing or other media. &quot;Nominative use&quot; of a mark is legal and does not expose the person making nominative use of a mark to liability. What is prohibited is using the protected mark to market goods or services in commerce, in a market where the trademark one fears being infringed currently exists and is being used to market goods or services of that trademark owner, to give the false impression of an association, affiliation, or endorsement by the trademark owner. The gravamen of a trademark infringement lawsuit is fraud and deception perpetrated on consumers to the detriment of the trademark owner. This is almost never a real risk in a fictional work. To the extent that there is a legal concern at all about distinguishing a fictional firm from a real one, the bigger legal exposure is to defamation liability. In other words, the bigger concern is the risk that the fictional work is viewed as making a thinly veiled false factual statement about the real world firm that damages its reputation (e.g. if it were to depict a fictional analogy of the real world firm &quot;Taco Bell&quot; making tacos out of horse meat as the real world firm has often, falsely, been accused of doing in real life because its prices are so low).
We can't tell you if you can do that or not, because that would be specific legal advise. You should consult an attorney who specializes in trademark law to get an estimation of how risky it would be to use that name. So I am just giving you a couple general pointers. Names are not protected by copyright, but by trademarks. The purpose of trademarks is to prevent consumer confusion. They are supposed to prevent someone from selling a product under a name which consumers might mistake for official merchandise of someone else. Media companies in particular tend to be very protective of their trademarks, because merchandising is often one of their main sources of revenue. And they don't want to share that revenue with people creating knockoff products. Also, they must fight for their trademark in court, because when they only enforce it selectively, then they risk that a court will consider the mark so widely used already that it is no longer worth protecting. But the show is from the 1950s. Is the trademark still protected after all that time? Maybe. There are registered trademarks and unregistered trademarks. Registered trademarks, which usually but not always are followed by an &quot;®&quot; symbol, need to be renewed in regular intervals. So if someone still pays for the renewal, it might still be a protected trademark. Unregistered trademarks, which usually but not always are followed by a &quot;™&quot; symbol, are protected as long as they are &quot;used in commerce&quot;. Which means that if the IP owner of that show still sells products branded as &quot;Winky Dink and you&quot;, they can probably still claim unregistered trademark protection. In order to find out, you would need to do your own research or pay your attorney to do a trademark research for you. Are your proposed names even a trademark violation? Perhaps, perhaps not. That's for a court to decide. Personally I think that &quot;Winky Dink and Me&quot; is more infringing than &quot;My Winky Dink Syndrome&quot;, because the first is a lot closer to the original name and brand image, giving it a higher likeliness of causing consumers to mistake it for an official &quot;Winky Dink and You&quot; product. But that's an argument you got to make in court. Estimating the chance that the judge will side with you and how much in legal costs it will take you to get to the point where you are even going to have the opportunity to make that argument is a job for your attorney.
Is it true that there has never been a single case It is tough to prove a negative. I am not going to completely parse the quote but please notice that the quote states "we couldn't find" and concludes that "it doesn't happen." Given these two pieces of information I do not conclude that there has never been a single case. Rather I conclude that the speaker in your quote could not find a case therefore he concluded that there has never been a single case. It's largely impossible to determine that there has never been a single such case. We can search published opinions but that barely scratches the surface of lawsuits that are filed. It is entirely possible that someone filed a suit which was quickly dismissed. The Act provides a defense, it does not bar lawsuits. Someone might get sick from food and not know where the food came from so they sue the provider. If this happens the provider may raise the Emerson Act as a defense and escape liability to the extent applicable. But again, we will never know because it's impossible to examine every lawsuit filed in this country.
You are referring to article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 which contains: Article 9 List of mandatory particulars In accordance with Articles 10 to 35 and subject to the exceptions contained in this Chapter, indication of the following particulars shall be mandatory: (...) (l) a nutrition declaration. In a comment you clarify that you are talking about wine. Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 contains: Article 16 Omission of certain mandatory particulars (...) Without prejudice to other Union provisions requiring a list of ingredients or a mandatory nutrition declaration, the particulars referred to in points (b) and (l) of Article 9(1) shall not be mandatory for beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol. As wine contains typically more than 1,2 % alcohol, a nutrition declaration is not required. See also Labelling of alcoholic beverages in the EU: some facts.
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.
It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to "furnish" alcohol to a "minor" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the "minor". This is to prevent "straw" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across state lines, so will have policies that can accomodate multiple alcohol control regimes.