Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Nude Model And A Car?

from the I-would-hope-so dept

An anonymous reader sends in word of yet another highly questionable trademark infringement lawsuit, as Toyota, makers of Lexus vehicles has filed a lawsuit against a nude model, who goes by the name Alexus Winston (link is probably NSFW, depending on your work environment). As the folks at Fleshbot note: "Lexus is a line of luxury automobiles put out by Toyota. Alexus Winston is a naked model." Anyone want to volunteer to be the moron in a hurry to prove that it's rather easy to tell the difference between the two?

Filed Under: alexus winston, lexus, moron in a hurry, nude models, trademark
Companies: toyota

Apple Forgets About the Moron In A Hurry Test, Threatens School With An Apple In Its Logo

from the comparing-apples-and-oranges dept

It was just a few years ago when Apple used the moron in a hurry test to defend itself against a trademark suit, but their own legal department seems to have forgotten about it already. Apple has sent a cease and desist letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology for the use of a blue and green apple element in their logo. The Canadian school has created a comparison page on their website in an attempt to highlight the differences between the logos, hoping to dissuade Apple from launching a lawsuit by building public support. The page also contains the legal correspondence to date, including a letter in which the school's president asks if Apple is "suggesting that anyone using any variation of an apple for technology education related use is infringing on Apple's trademark."

The legal question is really about consumer confusion, as the Canadian Supreme Court has understood in the past. Trademark law doesn't grant the holder an exclusive right over every use of a mark, just the right to prevent confusing or misleading use of it. The school is a technology school, but they're also a school -- an apple is a pretty common symbol for education. It seems like "even a moron in a hurry" would recognize the difference between the two logos, especially since the acronym "VSBT" is part of the school's. The real problem here seems to be the requirement of trademark law that the holder of a mark actively polices its use. This requirement encourages these sorts of cease and desist letters, even if it seems like a comparison between apples and oranges.

Filed Under: logo, moron in a hurry, trademark
Companies: apple

Time For A Moron In A Hurry To Explain The Difference Between Microprocessors And A Trip To China

from the it's-not-that-hard,-really dept

Intel is famous for being overly aggressive in trying to enforce its trademark, often claiming rights over almost any use of the prefix "intel" to anyone using the phrase "something inside," even if it's completely unrelated to the business that Intel is in. Trademark, of course, is not intended to give a company "ownership" of a word or phrase. Instead, it's a consumer protection system, designed to prevent consumers from being tricked into believing that they're buying a good from one company instead of another. That's why trademarks are only applicable in the business area that the company is using the mark. Thus, Johnny's Soda doesn't interfere with a trademark on Johnny's Dry Cleaning -- because they're totally separate businesses. That's also why we have the moron in a hurry test. If a "moron in a hurry" is unlikely to be confused by the use of the mark, then there's no trademark infringement.

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped Intel from trying. Over the years they've gone after a maker of jeans (Intel Jeans), a marketing firm (for using the term INTELMARK for one of its products) and an artist's cooperative for using the name "Art Inside") among various other cases over the years. Its latest is to go after a travel agency called Intellife Travel that books trips between the US and China. The travel agency clearly explained to Intel that unless Intel's trademark covered the travel business, there was unlikely to be any infringement. Intel took a year to think about it... and then filed a lawsuit. Hopefully, Intel gets smacked down quickly on this clear abuse of trademark law.

Filed Under: microprocessors, moron in a hurry, trademark, travel
Companies: intel, intellife travel

Monster Cable's Lawyers Realize That Even A Moron In A Hurry Knows The Difference Between A Salt Lick And A TV Cable

from the trademark-fun dept

Monster Cable has a long history of abusing trademark law to threaten and/or sue pretty much any company that uses the name "Monster" in its brand. That has included the TV show Monster Garage, a clothing store called MonsterVintage, Disney for the movie Monsters, Inc., the makers of Monster Energy drink, the Chicago Bears for having the nickname "Monsters of the Midway," and the Boston Red Sox for offering "Monster seats" on top of their famous "Green Monster" wall. We recently noted that it had also gone after Monster Mini Golf.

Of course, that's not how trademark law works. It doesn't give Monster Cable total control over the name Monster. It just gives the company the right to prevent others from using the brand in the same market in a way that is likely to confuse consumers. It's difficult to believe that anyone would think that Monsters, Inc., was somehow from Monster Cable. But, on and on it goes -- though, it appears that Monster Cable's lawyers were finally convinced to drop one suit. An anonymous reader points us to the news that Monster Cable has withdrawn its trademark challenge against the makers of Monster Deer Block, a salt and mineral lick designed to attract wild deer. Apparently, some lawyers for the makers of Monster Deer Block persuaded Monster Cable's lawyers that there was little chance of consumer confusion between the product and the makers of expensive audio/video cabling.

Filed Under: cables, monster deer block, moron in a hurry, salt lick, trademark
Companies: monster cable

European Court Notes That Using A Competitor's Trademark In An Ad Is Not Trademark Infringement

from the moron-in-a-hurry-goes-to-europe dept

We've said it probably 100 times, but trademark was never designed to be about "ownership." Rather, it's always been about consumer protection from fraud: making sure that you didn't buy one product, believing it was made by someone else. Yet, unfortunately, trademark is often lumped into the category of "intellectual property" with patents and copyright, and that falsely leads people to believe that trademarks are about ownership and, with it, full control over the mark. That leads to some really questionable situations, where companies overreach in trying to block others from using their mark. Luckily, some courts are pushing back on this. Steven Hoy writes in to let us know that a European court has ruled that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a company using a competitor's trademark in an advertisement for comparative purposes, just so long as there's no confusion on the part of the customer. This is exactly the way it should be. Hopefully, we'll start seeing European courts use the good old "moron in a hurry" test more frequently. After all, that "moron in a hurry" trademark test was a European invention in the first place.

Filed Under: competition, confusion, moron in a hurry, trademark, uk
Companies: hutchison 3g, o2