User:Buffs/Trademark Notes

''This is a draft. Still working on details and making sure everything is in line with US law and Wikipedia''

There seems to be a bit of confusion about trademarks and copyrights with respect to logos.


 * 1) A logo may be trademarked and/or copyrighted.
 * 2) A logo consisting of nothing but letters (no matter how ornate), simple geometric shapes, and/or simple shapes (i.e. arrows), it is ineligible for copyright. Therefore, it is a public domain image and should be labeled with and . This does not relieve users of this image from noting Wikipedia disclaimers that such an image may be protected by trademarks.
 * 3) A logo eligible for copyright protection should be labeled with

Logos consisting entirely of letters
If a logo consists entirely of letters, it is important to note the "intrinsic, utilitarian function" of those letters. As an example, the New York Yankees logo consists of an "N" and "Y" whose intrinsic, utilitarian function is to be an "N" and "Y". No matter how ornate, they are still letters and therefore ineligible for copyright and, hence, are PD images. This same logic does not hold for something like ASCII art where letters are arranged to form pictures. The intrinsic value of the letter has been used in a creative way in a manner not consistent with its use as a letter.

In short, ask yourself, "Are these letters, no matter how decorative, intended for use as letters, or do they have a purpose beyond the meaning of the letter like in ASCII art." 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 they are going to simply be letters and ineligible for copyright protection.

Skyy logo notes
As an example, U.S. courts have determined that the threshold of originality is not met for this logo.

Lanham Act
largely taken from this source info; should be summarized in the near future

The Lanham Act was originally enacted as the Trademark Act of 1946. It has been amended several times. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127.1 The Lanham Act provides guidance and remedies for both trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

Infringement
Trademark infringement occurs when a non-owner uses another’s trademark in a way that causes actual confusion or a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Specifically, the Act prohibits the use of marks that are "likely to cause confusion, or to cause a mistake, or to deceive."

In order to establish infringement, a plaintiff must first show that it uses its trademark use (you cannot simply register and then warehouse a trademark in hopes of some day bringing an infringement suit). They must also show that the trademark is distinctive. Lastly they must show that the defendant’s use of a mark is non-functional. A mark is non-functional when it is not inherent to the purpose or description of what it is representing. (For example, "bandage" is functional; "Band-Aid" is non-functional except when used to describe the product in question).

Dilution
A dilution case involves use of a mark in a "commercial context." This means that the use in question must actually be in the stream of commerce and could therefore make a profit for the user.

Dilution deals with marks as a "source indicators." This term refers to the ability of a mark to identify a user and/or its products and services. One of the most important aspects of using marks as source indicators is the reputation of a user and how that affects the public’s perception of the mark.

Dilution occurs when someone uses a another’s mark in a commercial context in a way that lessens the power of the owner’s mark as a source indicator.

forms of dilution
The first is dilution by tarnishment, which is the diminishing of the power of the senior user’s mark because of its association with the negative aspects or connotations of the junior user’s use of the mark.

The second is dilution by blurring, which is when the power of the senior user’s mark is decreased because of the blurring of the mark’s distinctive quality caused by the existence of the junior user’s mark.

Ornate letters
It's ornate, so now what?

It doesn't matter, it is still a letter and is not intended as anything else than a standard letter.

Ornamentation on letters is specifically mentioned as something that is not copyrightable.

Works of art
Works of art with a letter in them are copyrightable, IMHO (show example), but it should be taken into account whether it is an ornate letter or an ornate drawing with a letter in it.

Where do we draw the line?
Bottom line: Determine if is letters with ornamentation or art with letters.

Add notes here
Uncopyrightable, yet trademarked images aren't unprotected as the General Disclaimers of Wikipedia explicitly mention how to treat such images.

User:Elcobbola/Copyright.


 * "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:
 * It should be noted that "articles" in this case means "any medium in which it is used".
 * Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:
 * The United States Copyright Office sets forth:
 * There appears to be a misconception on Wikipedia and the Commons that only standard/publicly-available/etc typefaces (e.g. Times New Roman font, Verdana font, etc.) are ineligible for copyright protection.  There is no support for this belief.  If text falls within the definition of typeface above, it is generally not considered eligible for copyright; no consideration is given to prevalence or dispensation.