Trademark question I might regret asking
Discussion
As far as I know you could create a distinctive logo that includes the phrase, but that would just stop someone copying your distinctive logo that includes the phrase.
It wouldn’t stop someone using your phrase with a different logo or no logo at all, and might not stop someone using your distinctive logo with a different phrase.
It wouldn’t stop someone using your phrase with a different logo or no logo at all, and might not stop someone using your distinctive logo with a different phrase.
DSLiverpool said:
Thank you chaps, I can’t copywrite it I’m told it’s actually 12 words.
Just to clarify a few points. Apologies if you already know this but I've been embroiled in the topic for the past few months so am somewhat attuned to the vagaries that exist. Copyright isn't something that you have to proactively do. It's automatically assigned to the creator of original content. Although some companies offer 'Copyright Registration Services', these are absolute examples of snake-oil.
As it stands, the statement would not classify as something that is copyrightable in its own right. However, copyright might apply if it were clearly aligned and associated with your primary brand (both name and logo).
For example, if you entered the sports wear market with a brand called DSL Sportswear, you couldn't append the phrase 'Just Do It' to the brand or any of your marketing. However, if you set up a Business Start Up service and used the phrase appended to that, you could. Although that said, such is the strength of alignment between Nike and 'Just Do It', I would imagine they'd robustly intervene.
The word to consider here is 'synonymous'. Once a phrase becomes synonymous with a brand or company, then your claim of copyright becomes much stronger.
As you know, trade mark is something that does requires registration and in the context here relates to the graphic, brand identity only. Something to be aware of on this is that the logo has to be genuinely original.
I'm involved (albeit at arms length) in a situation where one entity commissioned the creation of a logo which bares remarkable similarity to the logo of another entity in the same space. One is traded-marked, the other is not. The issue is that the designers of each used the same logo template artwork from the same stock-library and simply exchanged the placeholder text with the name of the entity. Content obtained from stock libraries does not come with copyright which always remains with the creator. The matter is ongoing but the consensus is that you cannot trade mark something where the copyright is owned by a third party.
HTH
StevieBee said:
As it stands, the statement would not classify as something that is copyrightable in its own right. However, copyright might apply if it were clearly aligned and associated with your primary brand (both name and logo).
For example, if you entered the sports wear market with a brand called DSL Sportswear, you couldn't append the phrase 'Just Do It' to the brand or any of your marketing. However, if you set up a Business Start Up service and used the phrase appended to that, you could. Although that said, such is the strength of alignment between Nike and 'Just Do It', I would imagine they'd robustly intervene.
The word to consider here is 'synonymous'. Once a phrase becomes synonymous with a brand or company, then your claim of copyright becomes much stronger.
I’d counsel the exercise of caution before relying on this. For example, if you entered the sports wear market with a brand called DSL Sportswear, you couldn't append the phrase 'Just Do It' to the brand or any of your marketing. However, if you set up a Business Start Up service and used the phrase appended to that, you could. Although that said, such is the strength of alignment between Nike and 'Just Do It', I would imagine they'd robustly intervene.
The word to consider here is 'synonymous'. Once a phrase becomes synonymous with a brand or company, then your claim of copyright becomes much stronger.
It confuses whether something is protected by copyright, and whether something is distinctive for the purposes of trademark registration for any given class of goods or services “Synonymous” isn’t an expression used in copyright or trademark law. “Distinctive” is used in the latter though.
StevieBee said:
I'm involved (albeit at arms length) in a situation where one entity commissioned the creation of a logo which bares remarkable similarity to the logo of another entity in the same space. One is traded-marked, the other is not. The issue is that the designers of each used the same logo template artwork from the same stock-library and simply exchanged the placeholder text with the name of the entity. Content obtained from stock libraries does not come with copyright which always remains with the creator. The matter is ongoing but the consensus is that you cannot trade mark something where the copyright is owned by a third party.
Logos, or device marks, as they are properly called, may be registered as trade marks and separately be protected by copyright. Generally the owner of the copyright in the device mark is the only party entitled to register is as a trade mark; and even if a third party were to register it, they’d have to contend with the problem that their use of the mark may well infringe the copyright of the copyright owner. None of this is relevant to the OP’s question though. DSLiverpool said:
I can’t TM that but featuring it in a logo / design then could I ?
Yes, within reason. If the logo is very bland (e.g. the slogan written in arial font) then maybe not.You can’t then accuse people of infringing it just based on the words though - the similarity of their logo needs to be taken into account.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff