 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: Part of this logo looks strangly familiar
Date: 21 Feb 2008 22:55:17
Message: <47be47a5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert wrote:
> Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint and take a look at the logo
> and tell me what you think it looks like.
let's sue them! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Part of this logo looks strangly familiar
Date: 21 Feb 2008 23:02:03
Message: <47be493b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Halbert wrote:
>> Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint and take a look at the
>> logo and tell me what you think it looks like.
>
> let's sue them! :)
But who has the time and money to do that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Brian Elliott
Subject: Re: Part of this logo looks strangly familiar
Date: 21 Feb 2008 23:50:10
Message: <47be5482@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote in message
news:47be493b$1@news.povray.org...
>> Halbert wrote:
>>> Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint and take a look at the
>>> logo and tell me what you think it looks like.
>>
>> let's sue them! :)
>
> But who has the time and money to do that?
Let's see, um...
A. Choicepoint does
B. We, er...
I've no idea who was "first" with their current logo design, but for
unrelated reasons, I think CP would be the most likely winner of a
logo/trademark suit in either case. And essentially, each of those reasons
boil down to the relative size of the two parties and their budgets.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Brian Elliott wrote:
> I've no idea who was "first" with their current logo design, but for
> unrelated reasons, I think CP would be the most likely winner of a
> logo/trademark suit in either case.
In the USA, you actually have to be in businesses that could be confused
before trademarks become a problem. A trademark for an auto repair
company isn't ever going to conflict with the trademark for a microwave
dinner company, no matter how similar the logos.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:36:04 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Brian Elliott wrote:
>> I've no idea who was "first" with their current logo design, but for
>> unrelated reasons, I think CP would be the most likely winner of a
>> logo/trademark suit in either case.
>
> In the USA, you actually have to be in businesses that could be confused
> before trademarks become a problem. A trademark for an auto repair
> company isn't ever going to conflict with the trademark for a microwave
> dinner company, no matter how similar the logos.
Yep, that's pretty much the case. I found this out myself with regards
to the name "Novell", because there's a jewelery company with the same
name ("Novell Designs" IIRC). Similar situation - because the products
are in such different industries, nobody has a problem with the name
being the same.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote:
> Halbert wrote:
> > Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint and take a look at the logo
> > and tell me what you think it looks like.
> let's sue them! :)
If I'm not completely mistaken, things like logos do not fall under
copyright, but can be trademarked, but unlike copyright they do not
fall automatically under trademark, but have to be trademarked explicitly.
AFAIK the POV-Ray logo is not trademarked anywhere.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> In the USA, you actually have to be in businesses that could be confused
> before trademarks become a problem. A trademark for an auto repair
> company isn't ever going to conflict with the trademark for a microwave
> dinner company, no matter how similar the logos.
Also the logo has to be explicitly trademarked in the first place, AFAIK.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Brian Elliott
Subject: Re: Part of this logo looks strangly familiar
Date: 22 Feb 2008 06:15:29
Message: <47beaed1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:47be7208$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:36:04 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> In the USA, you actually have to be in businesses that could be confused
>> before trademarks become a problem. A trademark for an auto repair
>> company isn't ever going to conflict with the trademark for a microwave
>> dinner company, no matter how similar the logos.
>
> Yep, that's pretty much the case. I found this out myself with regards
> to the name "Novell", because there's a jewelery company with the same
> name ("Novell Designs" IIRC). Similar situation - because the products
> are in such different industries, nobody has a problem with the name
> being the same.
Cool. Now I can sleep tonight. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Also the logo has to be explicitly trademarked in the first place, AFAIK.
I *think* there are exceptions to this.
Or, rather, there's two ways to be explicit. One is to put (TM) after
the first use of the trade mark in a publication (that's a smallcaps TM
superscript, in printing), which tells people it is a trademark. Or you
can "register" the trademark, and put an R in a circle after it.
If you look at Windows, you'll see things like
Microsoft(R) Windows(TM) XP
If it's registered, you probably get more damages and such for
violators, on the grounds that they should be able to easily determine
they're walking on your trademark.
There's also laws about whether the trademark is "well-known". Something
like if it's been around for more than 5 years in more than some number
of geographic areas, it's a "well-known" trademark and slightly
different rules apply. "Coca-cola" for example is a "well-known"
trademark. I don't remember what the rules are, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:15:55 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47be7208$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:36:04 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> In the USA, you actually have to be in businesses that could be
>>> confused before trademarks become a problem. A trademark for an auto
>>> repair company isn't ever going to conflict with the trademark for a
>>> microwave dinner company, no matter how similar the logos.
>>
>> Yep, that's pretty much the case. I found this out myself with regards
>> to the name "Novell", because there's a jewelery company with the same
>> name ("Novell Designs" IIRC). Similar situation - because the products
>> are in such different industries, nobody has a problem with the name
>> being the same.
>
> Cool. Now I can sleep tonight. :-)
I have to admit that it's quite funny to be checking the news out on
Google Finance and have articles show up relating to new designs in
rings, necklaces, etc.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
