Sfrgttk

Excess Zinc in garden soil

Best approach to update all entries in a list that is paginated?

Is King K. Rool's down throw to up-special a true combo?

Why would a jet engine that runs at temps excess of 2000°C burn when it crashes?

Can you reject a postdoc offer after the PI has paid a large sum for flights/accommodation for your visit?

If Invisibility ends because the original caster casts a non-concentration spell, does Invisibility also end on other targets of the original casting?

Latest web browser compatible with Windows 98

US to Europe trip with Canada layover- is 52 minutes enough?

Replacing Windows 7 security updates with anti-virus?

When were linguistics departments first established

Can the druid cantrip Thorn Whip really defeat a water weird this easily?

Does the Bracer of Flying Daggers benefit from the Dueling Fighting style?

Potentiometer like component

What to do when during a meeting client people start to fight (even physically) with each others?

Good allowance savings plan?

How could a female member of a species produce eggs unto death?

Is a lawful good "antagonist" effective?

Why doesn't the EU now just force the UK to choose between referendum and no-deal?

Should QA ask requirements to developers?

What wound would be of little consequence to a biped but terrible for a quadruped?

How to deal with a cynical class?

Single word request: Harming the benefactor

Is all copper pipe pretty much the same?

Making a sword in the stone, in a medieval world without magic

Can infringement of a trademark be pursued for using a company's name in a sentence?

How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?Legal issues of a website such as [businessname]sucks.comLegality of a Business Name inspired by fictional charactersPublishing Another Company's TrademarkAerosol Product Label and Product Description CopyingTrademark infringement?Can I get a generic name trademarked?Can I use modified version of Apple, Android, Windows, and Blackberry logos in commercial advertising to show compatibility?Why does there appear to be a difference between depicting vehicles in games vs. in movies?Use of Microsoft Trademark in Product NameIs it trademark fair use to use company name/logo on your resume?

1

If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to

"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas"

Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.

Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?

copyright trademark

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

David Siegel

12.8k2448

asked 4 hours ago

SizzleSizzle

1837

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
  
  – Acccumulation
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
  
  – Sizzle
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
  
  – David Siegel
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to

"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas"

Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.

Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?

copyright trademark

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

David Siegel

12.8k2448

asked 4 hours ago

SizzleSizzle

1837

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Possible duplicate of How do i refer to a trademark I don't own without infringing on it?
  
  – Acccumulation
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I don't see the other post/question answering my question. I don't see saying "this is an iPhone case" on a product as similar to what I am asking. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thx.
  
  – Sizzle
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.
  
  – David Siegel
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to

"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas"

Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.

Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?

copyright trademark

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

David Siegel

12.8k2448

asked 4 hours ago

SizzleSizzle

1837

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

David Siegel

12.8k2448

asked 4 hours ago

SizzleSizzle

1837

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

David Siegel

12.8k2448

asked 4 hours ago

SizzleSizzle

1837

edited 2 hours ago

David Siegel

12.8k2448

edited 2 hours ago

David Siegel

12.8k2448

asked 4 hours ago

SizzleSizzle

1837

asked 4 hours ago

SizzleSizzle

1837

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

4

The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.

This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.

This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".

Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:

As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)

...

If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).

...

The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.8k2448

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38092%2fcan-infringement-of-a-trademark-be-pursued-for-using-a-companys-name-in-a-sente%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

4

The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.

This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.

This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".

Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:

As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)

...

If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).

...

The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.8k2448

add a comment | 

4

The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.

This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.

This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".

Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:

As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)

...

If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).

...

The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.8k2448

add a comment | 

The example in the question is a pretty clear case of Nominative use. The mark is being used to refer to, or name the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trade,mark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation.

This page from the International Trademark Association describes the concept.

This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "Nominative use" or 'descriptive use".

Digital Media Law's page on "Using the trademarks of others" says:

As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)

...

If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes).

...

The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.8k2448

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.8k2448

answered 2 hours ago

David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.8k2448

answered 2 hours ago

David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.8k2448