PayPal Sues Pandora Over Yawn-Inducing Logos And Tweets About People Opening The Wrong App
from the zzzzzzzz dept
We're going to jump right into this one without too much of a preamble, other than a quick refresher on what trademark law is designed to accomplish and what triggers a concern for infringement. The idea behind the law itself is to allow companies to utilize unique identifiers, be it name or branding, in order to distinguish itself from competitors by monopolizing those trademarkable items. The chief concern regarding infringement, therefore, is real or potential customer confusion in the marketplace as to the source of a particular product or service. With that out of the way, let's have some fun discussing how a recent lawsuit filed by PayPal against Pandora gets just about everything wrong with respect to the above preamble.
In October 2016, Pandora announced it was redesigning its logo from a thin, serifed "P" into the chunky, sans serifed "P" that it is today. The color scheme was also changed from midnight blue to a softer shade of blue. By comparison, PayPal's logo, active since 2014, also features a minimalist-looking "P" in a sans serif font and sporting a blue color palette. PayPal's mark actually consists of two overlapping and slanted "Ps," whereas Pandora keeps it to one. Both P's lack a hole.
It's over these two logos that PayPal has filed its lawsuit. Here they are, side by side.
Are they similar? I mean, maybe, but only as a function of how minimalist and non-unique each are. Each logo chiefly consists of a blue "P", except one logo has a single "P" and the other has two "Ps" of varying blue-ness and then slants them. As far as ingenuity into a logo design goes, it's not exactly Rembrandt. If you choose to make your identifying branding for your company as blasé as this, what exactly did you expect?
But the problems don't end there. The lawsuit itself is rife with examples of what PayPal insists are customer confusion in the marketplace. Here's an example.
Except that isn't really the sort of confusion that trademark law is supposed to deal with. The interest is in keeping the public from mistaking the origin of a product. That isn't happening in the examples in the filing. Once the music starts playing when a person intended to use PayPal to pay for something, it's not as though that person begins thinking that Pandora suddenly is handling payment processing requests. What those social media posts are really pointing out is that the logos used in each products' app aren't sufficiently unique to be easily identifiable. Coupled with the fact that Pandora and PayPal don't actually compete with one another, the angle of customer confusion as the basis for a trademark infringement is rather head-scratching.
But the larger point is that for trademark law to fulfill its original purpose, names and branding need to be unique. If companies choose not go the unique route, it shouldn't be possible for them to then bludgeon non-competing companies over the head with their trademarks.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: confusion, likelihood of confusion, p, trademar
Companies: pandora, paypal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Poe'd?
Of course, it could also be that my sarcasm detector is too sensitive. It's not like it never happened before :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poe'd?
I bet one can find a similar P in a thousand places, including other people's registered marks. App icons.. lol, good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Poe'd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Poe'd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poe'd?
Besides, you're likely to open the wrong app just by fat fingering. Forget about "consumer confusion".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Citation: Prenda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
just not the letter we're thinking of ..me think one needs begin at the start of the alphabet
muahaha
if this don't make your funny list ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid People
Not sure if this is helpful but was my first thought on reading the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both should be sued...
And using the alphabet, is obviously google's property, so any of that glyphs like 'P' is not really theirs to take.
Pandora's box is known to existed since long before these companies, so claiming that name to be unique is kinda huge stretch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't Pay Pay own the color blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blue P's Matter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blue P's Matter!
(FTFY)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... so, hardly a matter for a trademark law dispute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]