Trademark Infringement notice for usage of a dictionary word Jacuzzi in app - Google Play Store I'm a 1-woman independent developer who made an app called Front Jacuzzi Back Corgi - or FJBC for short. Today, I received a trademark infringement notice from Jacuzzi.com It's unexpectedly not from the App Store, but from Google Play. trademark_explain: Unauthorized use of the JACUZZI Trademark within the App that misleads the users into falsely believing that the developer is a manufacturer, licensee, or authorized user of Jacuzzi Inc’s. trademarks, or that Jacuzzi Inc. has endorsed or sponsored the App and or its associated websites, and any third party website. My usage of jacuzzi seems to be the dictionary non-Jacuzzi.com branded version. Nothing in my app even remotely looks like things from jacuzzi.com ... But, are there other conditions that I should be aware of? Arguably, my app merely simulates the feel of a jacuzzi resort - and does not even include a jacuzzi. Technical people have criticized my water effects for not actually looking like a jacuzzi. The audio recording is actually not from a jacuzzi either. Any advice is appreciated - esp on how to respond. Thank you -- In trying to come up with a name to stick with, I've encountered a lot of dictionary words such as jet and jets that turn out to be trademarked? How would you suggest I make sure the re-name would be okay? Previously, I had searched to make sure Front Jacuzzi wasn't used as a name, but was not aware that jacuzzi had a trademark meaning beyond that defined in m-w.com
Quit using the word Jacuzzi. That word is a brand name for a specific maker of hot tubs like Ford is for cars and not just a term for a hot tub. This happens so much to them that they have a site devoted to it. https://www.jacuzzi.com/baths/support/trademark-use/
No. A trademark is specific to an industry or type of products or services. And, while it is virtually impossible to get a new trade name with a three letter acronym because almost all of them are taken, three words that start with the same letters as a three letter acronym is not infringement on the acronym. You might very well be infringing if you used &quot;I.B.M.&quot; to sell computer equipment. But, &quot;Internal brilliance method&quot;, spelled out, would not infringe I.B.M., even in the computer equipment industry, and &quot;I.B.M.&quot; in the food service industry, for example, would not be trademark infringement on the International Business Machines&quot; trademark of &quot;I.B.M.&quot; for good and services of the type that it offers.
In US law, a trademark application only requires that you are now selling, or intend to sell in the reasonably near future, a product (or service) using the specified name. You don't have to provide an example, or a design, and it does not have to be patented. The applicant might be planning to license someone else's patent, or to market off-the-shelf tech not protected by patent. The applicant might be planning to market tech still under development and not yet ready to be submitted for a patent. I do not know Chinese trademark law, but I suspect it is similar in this regard. I have not heard of any country that requires a patent, a design, or an example of a working product along with a trademark registration. However, there is, in many countries, a requirement that actual sales occur within a limited period after the trademark is granted, and if this does not happen, the trademark registration may be canceled. The time allowed varies.
The standard for fair use of trademarks is as follows: (1) the product or service in question is not readily identifiable without use of the trademark (2) only so much of the mark as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service is used (3) use of the mark does not suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. I think you might run into a problem with (1). In other words the trademark owner would argue that you could have used fake trademarks to satisfy your product description needs, so you are using their trademark unnecessarily.
Yes, but... Trademarks generally have a particular class of goods or services they apply to. For a common word such as &quot;sky&quot;, a trademark will only be granted for a very narrow set; there's no chance of getting an &quot;all purposes&quot; trademark like you could for a made-up word. For example, VuongGiaNghi Nguyen holds a trademark to &quot;Sky&quot; in the United States when describing &quot;Eyelash Glue, Eyelash Extension Glue, False eyelashes, False eyelash perm kit, Lash Extensions&quot;, while Strange Loop, LLC, holds a trademark to it when describing &quot;Downloadable software featuring conversational agents to facilitate communication between humans and machines in an electronic messaging platform for use in the healthcare and medical fields&quot;. I'm guessing that British Sky Broadcasting's trademark has a &quot;goods and services&quot; that overlaps or is very similar to Microsoft's use of &quot;sky&quot;.
Imagine if the answer was a simple yes: adding a disclaimer was enough to exempt you from any and all copyright and trademark law suits. If that was the case, there would be no point in copyright or trademark law at all, because everyone could just include this disclaimer and never be sued. That doesn't mean every disclaimer is useless, but it does mean that copying and pasting some vague wording without understanding what it means is very unlikely to help you very much. The example you give is a good example of doing just that; the terms it uses are real, but they've clearly been thrown together without real understanding: Copyright is the right to control and profit from a creative work. This is relevant because images of Pokemon characters created for games, manga, etc are copyrighted by their creator. Trademarks are words, symbols, images, etc exclusively associated with a particular company or product. Trademark law aims, among other things, to avoid customers thinking they are getting an official product when they are not. &quot;Nintendo&quot; and &quot;Pokemon&quot; are both themselves trademarks. They are also the names of different companies. My limited understanding is that &quot;The Pokemon Company&quot; will be the owner of all the copyrights and trademarks related to those games, manga, etc. Naming them is a way of showing that you have researched this and understood their rights. &quot;This app is not affiliated , endorsed or supported by Nintendo in any way&quot;. This is a disclaimer on the trademarks. Whether this is sufficient to protect against claims of counterfeiting depends on how prominent it is compared to other branding - you need to make it obvious to users that the product is unofficial, not bury this in small-print for the lawyers to find. &quot;also some images used in this app are ... supported under fair use&quot; - fair use is a US legal concept which allows copyrighted works to be used in certain specifically limited ways. Saying your use is covered does not make it true, you need to actually understand what provisions of the law allow your specific use. &quot;no copyright infringement intended&quot; This is a fluffy apology that has no legal standing. A more useful statement might be &quot;every care has been taken to adhere to copyright and trademark law, if you notice a violation please contact X&quot;; but you're still relying on goodwill, and it won't stop someone sending the lawyers in if they decide to. Which brings us back to the real question: The apps mentioned before are in the store since 2015 and they haven't been removed yet. The real reason for this has nothing to do with the poorly-written disclaimers, it is that Nintendo / Pokemon co haven't bothered. If an app is directly competing with an official app, or receiving a lot of attention (even if no money), the lawyers will descend; if it's a buggy image gallery with a dozen downloads, they might decide they have better things to do. If they do notice, they might just get Apple and Google to de-list the app, but not spend the time and money pursuing a legal case. On the other hand, at any time they might decide they need to tighten up control of their intellectual property, and make an example of a few authors picked at random. The only way to avoid that is to actually avoid violating their rights, rather than just saying so in a disclaimer.
Why do you think Oracle have not been protecting their trade mark? Using a trade mark to describe the product (“Written in JavaScript”, “Seeking JavaScript developer”) is not an infringement and the trade mark owner is under no obligation to, indeed, cannot stop this. Where they are required to defend their trade mark is when it is being used in such a way that there is the risk of confusion that the goods or services could be confused with the trade mark owner’s goods or services. Further, they are not required to defend all breaches, only enough to show that they are actively doing so. Also it is not important that the trade mark be associated with the trade mark’s owner. Do you know who owns the trade mark “Ben &amp; Jerry’s”?
Not only can’t you trademark it, you can’t use it The original logo is covered by copyright which belongs, prima facie, to the original artist. It doesn’t matter that they are based in Russia; Russia and the US are both signatories to the Berne Convention which means they protect each other’s copyright. That means you can only use it if it is fair use (it isn’t) or if you have the copyright owner’s permission (you don’t). Could I still use the logo I bought and trademark it in the US granted that the seller had made some revisions to the stock photo he found? Not if the seller didn’t have permission to make those changes. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights copyright gives. The seller had changed up some parts of the stock image, this includes color scheme, orientation, and made the picture look a little low poly. See above. The original artist of the stock photo is based in Russia and as far as I can see there is no registered copyright on it and don't think they could apply for US copyright anyway. They already have copyright. They would need to register it in the US before they could sue but there is no impediment to them doing so. While I'm not sure where the seller (located in Pakistan) officially downloaded the logo, I had nothing to do with the final design of it or downloaded anything from a stock photo website myself, so I'm not sure if I'd be bounded by any terms of the stock photo website Makes no difference. Just because you didn’t steal the car, that doesn’t make it ok for you to drive it. The stock image is very niche and a bit random. Across all the websites the artist has published it on, it has about 5 or 6 downloads altogether. Not relevant at all. As far the copyright of the seller's work goes, the Fiverr terms state that buyers have all the copyright, though I don't know if this is nullified by the use of the stock image. You can’t sell something you don’t own. If the seller had no right to upload the photo (as it seems they didn’t), the terms of the website don’t matter. The true owner never agreed to those terms and isn’t bound by them.