If Hydra cannot be used...


I thought you couldn't name something the same name as another similar
product.  For example you may be able to call your new keyboard Ford
keyboards because there is no chance that you will be competing with Ford.
Likewise you could manufacture a Moog automobile without violating trademark
restrictions.  As long as your product is not similar to the other product
of the same name.

I think thats how it works.

Regards,
Hans Mikelson

 Maybe i'm wrong, but isn't it when Apple's computers started to make
sounds that could be generously described as "music" that Apple Records sued
them for making a product that competed into the "music industry" under 
the name "Apple"? 


							ALex.


On Fri, 8 May 1998, tolve wrote:

> In the US, trademark law encompasses numerous factors -fought over at great
> expense in civil court (though i understand that there are insurance
> policies for this sort of thing). While it is true that there is far less
> likelihood of a battle over the use of similar names in products that do
> not compete, under the principle of dilution you could run into trouble if
> your mark is judged to somehow diminish the effect of a widely known mark.
> and large companies with many lawyers on retainer...
> 
> tolve
> 
> 
> Hans Mikelson wrote:
> 
> >        If Hydra cannot be used...
> >
> >
> >I thought you couldn't name something the same name as another similar
> >product.  For example you may be able to call your new keyboard Ford
> >keyboards because there is no chance that you will be competing with Ford.
> >Likewise you could manufacture a Moog automobile without violating trademark
> >restrictions.  As long as your product is not similar to the other product
> >of the same name.
> >
> >I think thats how it works.
> >
> >Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



                                                                   Alex.

   
                                          "the map is not the territory"  
                                                             (korzybski)

In the US, trademark law encompasses numerous factors -fought over at great
expense in civil court (though i understand that there are insurance
policies for this sort of thing). While it is true that there is far less
likelihood of a battle over the use of similar names in products that do
not compete, under the principle of dilution you could run into trouble if
your mark is judged to somehow diminish the effect of a widely known mark.
and large companies with many lawyers on retainer...

tolve


Hans Mikelson wrote:

>        If Hydra cannot be used...
>
>
>I thought you couldn't name something the same name as another similar
>product.  For example you may be able to call your new keyboard Ford
>keyboards because there is no chance that you will be competing with Ford.
>Likewise you could manufacture a Moog automobile without violating trademark
>restrictions.  As long as your product is not similar to the other product
>of the same name.
>
>I think thats how it works.
>
>Regards,

Burton Alexandre is correct re the trademark dispute Apple Corps v Apple
Corps over the use of 'Apple': The case ran in the High Court in London
for over a year and cost millions, and then I believe carried on further
in the USA. It arose out of an earlier agreement between the two companies
which basically said Apple Records would not make computers and Apple
Computers would not make products capable of generating music. However
this original agreement was itself the outcome of legal proceedings purely
over the use of the name 'Apple', and associated logos, by two different
organisations on the grounds that there was the distinct possibility of a
conflict of trade interests, so there is a cautionary tale here re the
current debate over hYdra.  

Do not underestimate the potential consequences of trademark disputes -
they are very costly.... 

Peter Manning



On Fri, 8 May 1998, Burton Alexandre wrote:

> 
>  Maybe i'm wrong, but isn't it when Apple's computers started to make
> sounds that could be generously described as "music" that Apple Records sued
> them for making a product that competed into the "music industry" under 
> the name "Apple"? 
> 
> 
> 							ALex.
> 
> 

Hans Mikelson wrote:
> Likewise you could manufacture a Moog automobile without violating trademark
> restrictions.

If you picked this example without having heard of Moog Automotive, I
tip my hat to you. :-)

-- 
     Eli Brandt  |  eli+@cs.cmu.edu  |  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~eli/