Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint and take a look at the logo 
and tell me what you think it looks like.

--

Post a reply to this message

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

> 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

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> 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

"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