Category: trademark and copyright

This category deals mainly with two kinds of questions: (1) are two brand names so similar as to create confusion and blur brand image?  (2) Is a mark sufficiently distinctive as to be protectable (includes unprecedented meaning shift, e.g., “Dawn,” “Reebok”)?   Or is it already established in the language as a generic term?

“Google” goes generic

Some years ago, right around this time of year, a geek site, as an April Fools prank, launched a new product — unicorn meat – which it called “the new white meat,” and lawyers for the National Pork Board issue a cease-and-desist order, because they’ve gone to great lengths to copyright “the other white meat” as a synonym for “pork,” and the new product might cause consumer confusion (or “trademark dilution,” as they sometimes call it).

https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/unicorns-theyre-not-the-other-white-meat/

I’m not going to tell those lawyers to lighten up – they get paid big bucks to defend their trademark vigorously, by which I mean they make sure it is associated with their product and no other.

Memo to National Pork Board Lawyers

By Alan M. Perlman.

A geek site, as an April Fools prank, launches a new product — unicorn meat – which it calls “the new white meat,” and lawyers for the National Pork Board issue a cease-and-desist order, because they’ve gone to great lengths to copyright “the other white meat” as a synonym for “pork,” and the new product might cause consumer confusion (or “trademark dilution,” as they sometimes call it).