Can A Moron Driving A Porsche Recognize The Difference Between The Car And A Pair Of Crocs?

from the that's-for-the-judge-to-determine dept

Reader Sceptic alerts us to a new lawsuit that seems perfect (on various levels) for the old "moron in a hurry" trademark test. Automaker Porsche -- for drivers in a hurry -- has sent a cease-and-desist letter to footwear maker Crocs, claiming that the company's use of "Cayman" for one of its shoes is a violation of Porche's trademark on the same term. As the folks at Footnoted point out:

Now few people would probably confuse Crocs Cayman sandal for the Porsche Cayman. After all, one sells for $29.99 and the other starts at $51,000.

Of course, this is apparently taking place in Germany, and (tragically) the moron in a hurry test (as far as we know) has still only been used in the UK, the US and Canada. But here's a perfect opportunity for its introduction (in a hurry) in Germany.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

North Face Goes After South Butt Over Trademark Infringement

from the morons-in-a-hurry-in-heavy-fleeces dept

Another day, another story of a company reacting overly aggressively with a trademark infringement claim. North Face, the well known clothing company, apparently is not at all pleased with a student who created a parody line of clothing called "South Butt." The lawyer representing the student had a great quote:

"I did try to explain with a great deal of candor to counsel for the North Face that the general public is aware of the difference between a face and a butt."

And, indeed, that's the central question in most trademark lawsuits. Are the customers confused into thinking that they're buying one product, rather than the other. It would be pretty difficult for North Face to claim with a straight face that those buying South Butt clothing don't realize it's a different company...

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Board Game Maker Sues Google, Claiming Trademark Infringement

from the publicity-stunt dept

Yehuda Berlinger points out that a board game company in South Africa that has a Cricket-themed board game called "Googly" is suing Google over trademark, claiming that Google's registration of the google.co.za domain name violates its trademark. Of course, as the site writing about the story notes, no moron in a hurry would ever confuse the two (though, I'm unaware of whether or not South Africa accepts the moron in a hurry test for trademarks). My guess is that this is really just a publicity stunt by the board game maker, (correctly) realizing that this little lawsuit would get them some press.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?

from the yummy-cushions... dept

There are some legal decisions that just make no sense. Gunnar writes in to let us know of a story in Michigan, where a judge has ordered a furniture store to stop using a design that shows a couch being unwrapped from a candy bar. Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars:

But here's the thing: even the judge admits that trademark law shouldn't apply here because it's a totally different business and there's little chance of customer confusion: "While both parties cater to the general public, there is no indication that their customers are predominantly the same. Even if their customer bases overlap to some extent ... the risk of consumers confusing a furniture outlet with a candy store, or vice versa, appears remote." Those are all things a judge says right before denying the trademark claim, but in this case, it went the other way. If a moron in a hurry isn't likely to be confused, then there's no trademark infringement. The furniture store wasn't even using the image yet -- but just had it in a contest for truck designs. At least the company hadn't spent too much money painting up all the trucks.

58 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Nude Model And A Car?

from the I-would-hope-so dept

An anonymous reader sends in word of yet another highly questionable trademark infringement lawsuit, as Toyota, makers of Lexus vehicles has filed a lawsuit against a nude model, who goes by the name Alexus Winston (link is probably NSFW, depending on your work environment). As the folks at Fleshbot note: "Lexus is a line of luxury automobiles put out by Toyota. Alexus Winston is a naked model." Anyone want to volunteer to be the moron in a hurry to prove that it's rather easy to tell the difference between the two?

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Forgets About the Moron In A Hurry Test, Threatens School With An Apple In Its Logo

from the comparing-apples-and-oranges dept

It was just a few years ago when Apple used the moron in a hurry test to defend itself against a trademark suit, but their own legal department seems to have forgotten about it already. Apple has sent a cease and desist letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology for the use of a blue and green apple element in their logo. The Canadian school has created a comparison page on their website in an attempt to highlight the differences between the logos, hoping to dissuade Apple from launching a lawsuit by building public support. The page also contains the legal correspondence to date, including a letter in which the school's president asks if Apple is "suggesting that anyone using any variation of an apple for technology education related use is infringing on Apple's trademark."

The legal question is really about consumer confusion, as the Canadian Supreme Court has understood in the past. Trademark law doesn't grant the holder an exclusive right over every use of a mark, just the right to prevent confusing or misleading use of it. The school is a technology school, but they're also a school -- an apple is a pretty common symbol for education. It seems like "even a moron in a hurry" would recognize the difference between the two logos, especially since the acronym "VSBT" is part of the school's. The real problem here seems to be the requirement of trademark law that the holder of a mark actively polices its use. This requirement encourages these sorts of cease and desist letters, even if it seems like a comparison between apples and oranges.

Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Time For A Moron In A Hurry To Explain The Difference Between Microprocessors And A Trip To China

from the it's-not-that-hard,-really dept

Intel is famous for being overly aggressive in trying to enforce its trademark, often claiming rights over almost any use of the prefix "intel" to anyone using the phrase "something inside," even if it's completely unrelated to the business that Intel is in. Trademark, of course, is not intended to give a company "ownership" of a word or phrase. Instead, it's a consumer protection system, designed to prevent consumers from being tricked into believing that they're buying a good from one company instead of another. That's why trademarks are only applicable in the business area that the company is using the mark. Thus, Johnny's Soda doesn't interfere with a trademark on Johnny's Dry Cleaning -- because they're totally separate businesses. That's also why we have the moron in a hurry test. If a "moron in a hurry" is unlikely to be confused by the use of the mark, then there's no trademark infringement.

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped Intel from trying. Over the years they've gone after a maker of jeans (Intel Jeans), a marketing firm (for using the term INTELMARK for one of its products) and an artist's cooperative for using the name "Art Inside") among various other cases over the years. Its latest is to go after a travel agency called Intellife Travel that books trips between the US and China. The travel agency clearly explained to Intel that unless Intel's trademark covered the travel business, there was unlikely to be any infringement. Intel took a year to think about it... and then filed a lawsuit. Hopefully, Intel gets smacked down quickly on this clear abuse of trademark law.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Monster Cable's Lawyers Realize That Even A Moron In A Hurry Knows The Difference Between A Salt Lick And A TV Cable

from the trademark-fun dept

Monster Cable has a long history of abusing trademark law to threaten and/or sue pretty much any company that uses the name "Monster" in its brand. That has included the TV show Monster Garage, a clothing store called MonsterVintage, Disney for the movie Monsters, Inc., the makers of Monster Energy drink, the Chicago Bears for having the nickname "Monsters of the Midway," and the Boston Red Sox for offering "Monster seats" on top of their famous "Green Monster" wall. We recently noted that it had also gone after Monster Mini Golf.

Of course, that's not how trademark law works. It doesn't give Monster Cable total control over the name Monster. It just gives the company the right to prevent others from using the brand in the same market in a way that is likely to confuse consumers. It's difficult to believe that anyone would think that Monsters, Inc., was somehow from Monster Cable. But, on and on it goes -- though, it appears that Monster Cable's lawyers were finally convinced to drop one suit. An anonymous reader points us to the news that Monster Cable has withdrawn its trademark challenge against the makers of Monster Deer Block, a salt and mineral lick designed to attract wild deer. Apparently, some lawyers for the makers of Monster Deer Block persuaded Monster Cable's lawyers that there was little chance of consumer confusion between the product and the makers of expensive audio/video cabling.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

European Court Notes That Using A Competitor's Trademark In An Ad Is Not Trademark Infringement

from the moron-in-a-hurry-goes-to-europe dept

We've said it probably 100 times, but trademark was never designed to be about "ownership." Rather, it's always been about consumer protection from fraud: making sure that you didn't buy one product, believing it was made by someone else. Yet, unfortunately, trademark is often lumped into the category of "intellectual property" with patents and copyright, and that falsely leads people to believe that trademarks are about ownership and, with it, full control over the mark. That leads to some really questionable situations, where companies overreach in trying to block others from using their mark. Luckily, some courts are pushing back on this. Steven Hoy writes in to let us know that a European court has ruled that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a company using a competitor's trademark in an advertisement for comparative purposes, just so long as there's no confusion on the part of the customer. This is exactly the way it should be. Hopefully, we'll start seeing European courts use the good old "moron in a hurry" test more frequently. After all, that "moron in a hurry" trademark test was a European invention in the first place.

1 Comments | Leave a Comment..