What they are doing is establishing a trademark, not a copyright. Which means that a rival company can't use a similar logo to offer their products, hoping to ride on the brand recognition. Now that doesn't mean they have complete control over things like pawprints or Space Marines (another notorious case) or that they try to make an "a priori" claim against a more longer established distinctive feature.
If you happen to use a pawprint as a logo, that company may try to stop you from using it as they may believe that it is an infringement on their trademark and will send a C&D which is the legally framed documental equivalent of "Please stop doing this."
Trademarks are registered and come with a description of what they allegedly cover. So they may claim a logo trademark for clothing, but if you are a ZOO or a music band called Wolfprint it's going to be an uphill struggle to enforce it.
If it comes down to litigation, then it's usually a matter of both lawyers to try to convince the judge that is or isn't an infringement. Judge then makes a decision based on the evidence presented. I'll refer to Samsung vs Apple for a good example of this.
Also note that everything I put in this post is not legal advice, merely something I looked up to a certain degree, talk to a real lawyer if you want to know more.
Confirmed, and great post. People often confuse copyrights and trademarks because - especially with a logo - both areas of law may be implicated by the same logo (copyrights cover the original elements of the graphic design, but trademark is what confers the exclusive right to use that graphic design in connection with certain specified goods or services.) But they are distinct - you can have a trademark in a design in which you do not own the copyright (such as a public domain image - if I use a picture of Da Vinci as a trademark to "brand" my goods or services and distinguish them from other similar goods and services on the market, I can get trademark rights in that image, but I can't prevent people for using the image in any other way - except to sell goods and services that are so similar to mine that people may be confused and buy those other goods or services thinking I am the one providing them. This is the "likelihood of consumer confusion" standard for trademark infringement.)
Too often news outlets get really sloppy and take a valid trademark claim and blow it up into "Apple Inc. wants to own all pictures of an apple" when reporting on a case that, in fact, is most likely a trademark infringement claim to stop using a picture of an apple only on goods and services that are similar to what Apple offers under its own logo - such as computers, phones or music players. This feeds into the "all big companies are bad and over-reaching" narrative. But Apple has to take these steps - unlike with copyright, failure to enforce your trademark rights leads to losing them. (Fun fact - this goes both ways: Apple Corps (the record company started by the Beatles) engaged in 20-plus years of litigation against Apple Inc. because they claimed that Apple Inc.'s apple logo infringed on the Beatles trademark to the extent that Apple computers could play music. The litigation settled but flared up again when Apple released the iPod (a music player) Finally settled a few years back, which is why Beatles music is now available on iTunes).
Again, great post.
M
Excellent summaries of TM law basics.
The one caveat I'd include is a quirk in the Lanham Act relating to "famous marks."
Most of the time, the trademark is affixed to a
specific item or service (although, technically, services get "service marks," but I digress). The way to think about it is [trademark]-brand [goods]. So, to put in context, if you have a coffee thermos company, you could name your company "Grizzly." Meaning that the mark would apply to "Grizzly"-brand coffee thermoses.
The Lanham Act allows you to go after people who literally pirate the mark (so, someone selling counterfeit "Grizzly"-brand thermoses). You can also go after them for "confusingly similar" marks. So, if someone created "Grizzlie"-brand thermoses, or "Grizzz"-brand thermoses, you could probably stop them from using those names (through a variety of methods I won't get into here). The farther away from the original mark you get, though, the more you have to prove a likelihood of confusion. So, sure, "Grizzlie" brand thermoses are a no-go, but what about "Bruin"-brand? Or "Bearclaw"-brand? Or "Kodiak"-brand? Those are circumstances where you actually need to find evidence that the public is likely to be confused. And thus, we come to the real crux of TM law:
Trademark law, as my professor explained, is
not about
ownership of the mark. Rather, at a policy level, it is about
protecting the public. A mark is designed to denote origin, to tell the public where an item comes from. So, a mark which raises confusion in the public about origin is a problem. THAT is why you sue someone from TM infringement. IT's because their mark is confusing the public, and making the public think "Oh, look, a Kodiak thermos. That must be made by Grizzly. Guess it's a new product line or something." If you can't prove that the public would be confused, you're
supposed to lose.
HOWEVER, the Lanham Act also includes a section on so-called "famous marks." Famous marks are trademarks which are so famous, so widely known, that they are given a much higher level of protection, almost to the point of being a kind of "ownership" of that mark. The easiest case I can think of is the "McDental" case. Basically, a dentist (I forget where, but let's assume the 9th Circuit, a.k.a. "Crazyland") set up a dental clinic that would provide extremely fast service (so he claimed). He decided to call it "McDental." Naturally, McDonalds sued him. And won.
AND WON.
But wait! How is it likely that the public would confuse the origin of the services? How is it likely that people would go to McDental and think "Whoa! McDonalds is getting into
dentistry?!"
Answer: it isn't. Not even remotely. BUT, because McDonalds is a "famous mark," it's given extra protection, and basically the guy isn't allowed to ride McDonalds' coattails based on the fame of the mark. This is where trademark -- and the public policy argument for protecting the public by accurately denoting origin -- bleeds into "copyright" -- and the public policy argument for providing creators of works ownership of their creations, to reward their hard work and encourage them to do more.
In my opinion, it's one of the worst aspects of the Lanham Act, and it fundamentally undermines the purpose of trademarks. It's also why it's easy for journalists to say that "Apple wants to own all Apple marks." Technically, they don't. But the Lanham Act gives them a LOT more latitude to assert "ownership" than it might seem in most cases. Like, to the point where Apple, Inc. sued Apple Records (the Beatles' old label, which still exists). They lost, but you get the idea here. There's also a problem with stretching the definition of "famous." Like, what's a truly "famous" mark? Are we talking "famous" just within a small segment of society, or within all walks of life, or what?
Anyway, bit of a digression, but I always found that stuff interesting.
