Can infringement of a trademark be pursued for using a company's name in a sentence?
If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to
"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas"
Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.
Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?
copyright trademark
add a comment |
If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to
"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas"
Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.
Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?
copyright trademark
1
Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
– Sizzle
10 hours ago
3
While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
– David Siegel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to
"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas"
Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.
Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?
copyright trademark
If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to
"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas"
Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.
Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?
copyright trademark
copyright trademark
edited 9 hours ago
David Siegel
13k2549
13k2549
asked 10 hours ago
SizzleSizzle
20517
20517
1
Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
– Sizzle
10 hours ago
3
While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
– David Siegel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
– Sizzle
10 hours ago
3
While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
– David Siegel
9 hours ago
1
1
Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
1
I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
– Sizzle
10 hours ago
I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
– Sizzle
10 hours ago
3
3
While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
– David Siegel
9 hours ago
While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
– David Siegel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.
This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.
This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".
Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:
As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)
...
If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).
...
The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.
1
Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf
– Sizzle
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38092%2fcan-infringement-of-a-trademark-be-pursued-for-using-a-companys-name-in-a-sente%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.
This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.
This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".
Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:
As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)
...
If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).
...
The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.
1
Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf
– Sizzle
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.
This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.
This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".
Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:
As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)
...
If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).
...
The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.
1
Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf
– Sizzle
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.
This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.
This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".
Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:
As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)
...
If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).
...
The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.
The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.
This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.
This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".
Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:
As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)
...
If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).
...
The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.
answered 9 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
13k2549
13k2549
1
Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf
– Sizzle
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf
– Sizzle
6 hours ago
1
1
Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf
– Sizzle
6 hours ago
Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf
– Sizzle
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38092%2fcan-infringement-of-a-trademark-be-pursued-for-using-a-companys-name-in-a-sente%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
– Sizzle
10 hours ago
3
While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
– David Siegel
9 hours ago