And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:24:57 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did  
spake, saying:

>> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two  were  
>> operating in different spheres hence no problem. With Gilles examples  
>> the French courts should have told Kraft to bugger off, Milka Budmir  
>> wasn't selling chocolate, wasn't profiting from the association
>
> I'm sure she got a few more hits by people searching for Milka  
> Chocolate...

But it would be difficult to show that was intentful. Do people who want  
to buy chocolate likely to be looking for clothes too? Is she misleading  
people into thinking she's associated with Kraft Foods? As Gilles has said  
they've tried to prove malicious intent and presumably succeeded.

>> Kraft's fault for not registering it  first.
>
> Yep, that was my first thoughts too, but once I started thinking about  
> it, the woman would have likely been making more profit as a direct  
> result of Kraft's effort to build the Milka brand.  It doesn't matter  
> that they aren't the same type of goods, no doubt *some* people who are  
> looking for chocolate would have taken an interest in whatever she was  
> selling.  I haven't decided yet whether I think that should be allowed  
> or not.

But it's the trading on a name via association, which is how the trademark  
law is applied. How likely is it for people to associate Milka Couture  
with Milka Chocolate? If she started selling clothes with an image of the  
bar on them then sure; otherwise...? Likewise I could set up McDonald's  
Refuse Collection, but McDonald's Chippie might cause brand confusion.

What's to stop me registering harrrods.com or microsft.com, the answer is  
that it would be difficult for me to show I did so for 'innocent' reasons.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message