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?

Can "semicircle" be used to refer to a part-circle that is not a exact half-circle?

When two POV characters meet

Excess Zinc in garden soil

What is the definition of "Natural Selection"?

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

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

Is it true that real estate prices mainly go up?

Why don't MCU characters ever seem to have language issues?

Touchscreen-controlled dentist office snowman collector game

Deleting missing values from a dataset

Does Linux have system calls to access all the features of the file systems it supports?

Is all copper pipe pretty much the same?

Should QA ask requirements to developers?

Can someone explain this Mudra being done by Ramakrishna Paramhansa in Samadhi?

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

What is the likely impact on flights of grounding an entire aircraft series?

How is the Swiss post e-voting system supposed to work, and how was it wrong?

Why does Deadpool say "You're welcome, Canada," after shooting Ryan Reynolds in the end credits?

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

Force user to remove USB token

Rejected in 4th interview round citing insufficient years of experience

Format picture and text with TikZ and minipage

What has been your most complicated TikZ drawing?

Coworker uses her breast-pump everywhere in the office



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?













3















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





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

    – Acccumulation
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    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
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago















3















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





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

    – Acccumulation
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    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
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago













3












3








3








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?










share|improve this question
















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















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









David Siegel

12.9k2448




12.9k2448










asked 6 hours ago









SizzleSizzle

1957




1957







  • 1





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

    – Acccumulation
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    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
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago












  • 1





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

    – Acccumulation
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    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
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.

    – David Siegel
    4 hours ago







1




1





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

– Acccumulation
6 hours ago





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

– Acccumulation
6 hours ago




1




1





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
5 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
5 hours ago




3




3





While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.

– David Siegel
4 hours ago





While somewhat related, i don't think this should be closed as a duplicate.

– David Siegel
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8














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


















  • 1





    Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf

    – Sizzle
    1 hour ago










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


















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















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









8














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


















  • 1





    Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf

    – Sizzle
    1 hour ago















8














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


















  • 1





    Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf

    – Sizzle
    1 hour ago













8












8








8







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













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












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.9k2448




12.9k2448







  • 1





    Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf

    – Sizzle
    1 hour ago












  • 1





    Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf

    – Sizzle
    1 hour ago







1




1





Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf

– Sizzle
1 hour ago





Fantastic. This is very helpful. I also found this case to be helpful: ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/08/07-55344.pdf

– Sizzle
1 hour ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














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















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org