View Single Post
Old 11-16-2009, 05:05 AM   #73
cyde01
ft86club resident b-boy
 
cyde01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Drives: Yamaha R3, moonslate 2018 GT Black
Location: LA Area So Cal
Posts: 1,214
Thanks: 142
Thanked 208 Times in 101 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Comet View Post
It's an intellectual exercise. Humour me.
sigh... really? i mean, really? isn't it common sense that if chevy came out with a "camaro mustang edition" or something like that ford would automatically sue for trademark infringement? or how about "ford mustang firebird edition?" how about toyota call this car "toyota levin aztek?" or "toyota corolla delorean edition?"

no offense but this is just silly. i shouldn't even have to type this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attaching to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees (provided that such authorization was within the scope of the license). Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers.

Likelihood of confusion is not necessarily measured by actual consumer confusion, though normally one of the elements, but by a series of criteria Courts have established. A prime example is the test announced by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in AMF, Inc v Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (C.A.9) 1979. The Court there announced eight specific elements to measure likelihood of confusion:
  1. Strength of the mark
  2. Proximity of the goods
  3. Similarity of the marks
  4. Evidence of actual confusion
  5. Marketing channels used
  6. Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
  7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark
  8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines
any lawyer will tell you that toyota using sprinter within any part of the model name would mean chrysler would have a very strong case for trademark infringement according to #2 and #3. in this case, the trademark would be concerning a name, which would make the "marks" identical according to #3. according to #2, while they are very different models competing for very different market segments, they are both automobiles, so as far as the law goes, they are at extreme close proximity (within the same industry). chrysler would have a very strong case, but how would the court rule? of course no one would know, but if chrysler had such a strong case why would toyota even bother in the first place? over a name that only has recognition with internet forum inital d fanboys?
cyde01 is offline   Reply With Quote