Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jon Westfall
The scary part? I can almost see T-Mobile's point because Yes, Engadget Mobile does use the word "Mobile" and yes, they do use a color very similar to T-Mo's magenta (to color the word Mobile, nonetheless). While I don't think anyone is confused by the difference, I can kinda see T-Mobile's point, in a weird convoluted way. So am I weird? Is this completely frivilous or is there something to see here?
|
Jon, I hate to argue with a new MVP, but....
In this case I do think you are definitely being weird...
Trademark isn't about making sure others don't use your logo, colors, etc. It's to make sure other's don't use those to confuse a consumer into buying one product thinking it's another.
In this case nobody, including an idiot in a hurry, would go to the engadet Mobile site an think that they could buy a phone or service from T-Mobile. If engadget Mobile was selling mobile phone service you would have a better argument, though the names are sufficiently different enough that even that would be a difficult one for me to swallow.
Trademark means I can't make a cola product, put it in a red can that says "Coke Cola", instead of "Coca Cola" and then sell it to people who think they are getting the real thing. The problem is that so many companies, such as T-Mobile, in this case, either don't care what the law is, or want to use the law to try and bully out true competition that many of us have become immune to the true purpose of trademark law. In this case engadget has handled this appropriately by mocking T-mobile and their ignorance of trademark law. Please don't further confuse this sort of issue by implying T-Mobile is correct in this in ANY sort of way - they don't own the world wide rights to the word mobile in magenta.
I think your post answered it's own question when you said "..I don't think anyone is confused by the difference." If that's the case then clearly there is no trademark violation.