T-Mo to Engadget: Stop Using Our Color!!!

[Jon Westfall]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/deutsche-telekom-t-mobile-demands-engadget-mobile-discontinue/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/...le-discontinue/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"So last week Deutsche Telekom, owners of the global T-Mobile brand, sent Engadget a late birthday present: a hand-delivered letter direct from their German legal department requesting the prompt discontinuation of the use of the color magenta on Engadget Mobile. Yep, seriously. Granted, we get nastygrams from angry tech companies practically every day, but rarely regarding anything that's not some piece of news we published that they're livid about having out in the open. And irony of ironies, this whole use-of-magenta thing is precisely the topic we took up last year on behalf of DT."</em></p><br /><p>It is Friday here at Pocket PC Thoughts, and today I'm thinking about how best to get myself confused with a major company to try to get my exposure up. Apparently T-Mobile may be thinking that Engadget Mobile had similar thoughts and as thus sent out a rather interesting letter to them. 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?</p>

[chrisspera]

I think this is totally nuts. The two companies are vastly different, even though they play in the same space. T-Mo is a tel-com company. Engadget is a media/content company. T-Mo doesn't OWN the color, magenta; or the sole rights to it.

I'm not certain I buy this, and think its really a waste of time for both parties.

[whydidnt]

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.

[sesummers]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/deutsche-telekom-t-mobile-demands-engadget-mobile-discontinue/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/...le-discontinue/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"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?</p>
Whether you're weird or not isn't the question.

The question is whether or not you're going to cease and desist your use of the color blue on your main page. The color is VERY similar to that of our corporate logo, and part of our product line includes software that runs on Pocket PCs. CLEARLY, you're in violation. We have been in business for 22 years, with the color blue in continuous use that entire time, so I'm confident we have precident on our side.

You can either shut down your web site immediately, or pay us annual royalties for the use of our color. Otherwise, we're going to say really nasty things about you under our breath, and think really uncharitable thoughts about you.

I expect a response by end of day, or even STRONGER threats will be issued.

[paschott]

Frivolous. Definitely. This is a complete waste of time and money for everyone involved and for absolutely nothing. I wouldn't go to Engadget's site expecting to buy phone service. Get recommendations, maybe, but not to buy. I doubt I'll ever be visiting T-Mobile's site to buy phone service, especially if someone running the company thinks this is a good use of the money I'd be paying them.

[makicr]

Bogus. There is absolutely no chance of any product confusion. That is what trademark protection is all about.

[Fritzly]

Totally BS. Attempts like this only hurt the crediblity of a company that initiated such kind of actions.

[virain]

LOL! Big T-Mo had to remind the USA population that they are still here! We have not had any news from T-Mo since they acquire that 2100 Mhz spectrum, when was that, 2-3 years ago. So that's the way to show that T-Mo is still here! After all as they say it in a show business: " Every mention is a mansion"

[Jon Westfall]

Jon, I hate to argue with a new MVP, but....;)

In this case I do think you are definitely being weird...



Argue away, and I am probably weird just for the record


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.


I don't think the issue was 'buying' per sey, but people confusing engadget mobile for an officially representative arm of T-Mobile, which would confuse a consumer.

In this case nobody, including an idiot in a hurry


Have you seen some of the idiots in a hurry on the net? :)


, 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 agree with your point about the unsavory use of trademark law by some big corporations, however in this case they may have an extremely small leg to stand on. Consider this example:

Very dumb t-mobile user heads over to engadget mobile one day by accident and notices a story especially critical of T-Mobile, suggesting that T-Mobile customers receive some sort of compensation for a T-mo screw up (Give it time, this will happen...) Very Dumb then calls T-Mobile and asks for his compensation, claiming that he went to "the mobile news website you guys run".

Now this is a pretty far-fetched story, which is why I said it was an extremely small leg. However this may be a valid argument, which is why I posed the issue in the first place.


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.

I never answer my own questions, Do I? Of course not!

Jon.

[Rob Alexander]

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.

Whydidnt is right on about the purpose of trademarks, but there is one other issue here that I believe causes companies to do things like this, even when they're not totally reasonable. That is the requirement that they vigorously protect their trademark. If someone else violates their trademark in a more obvious manner and T-Mobile wishes to enforce it, then they must be able to show that they have not been casual about allowing others to use it previously.

Of course, few people would think that anyone could confuse these two marks, but in the trademark world, T-Mobile is better off to pursue every possible claim and lose many of them than to not pursue them at all. Even if a court rules against T-Mobile, then they have still protected their trademark so the goal is achieved. The natural tendency, then, is to pursue everything that is even remotely related and let the courts decide which ones aren't actual violations.

[dtanderson]

T-Mo doesn't OWN the color, magenta; or the sole rights to it.


My thoughts also. Are they suing other phone companies for have magenta colored phones?

[Thinkingmandavid]

I think it is all about perception from a consumer stand point and from a company stand point. T-Mobile concerned about that product being confused as a T-Mobile product. Fortunately they do not have a hold on the color. That would be ridiculous, if that is the case blue is my favorite color and I am in danger of not being able to use it. More importantly, there are only so many designs and colors available, so companies need to be smart in design and strategy implimentation of their products and services.

T-Mobile is using a "first responder" in this situation. It is not because 10,000 consumers have complained. As an example: The Blockbuster blue is close to the Bestbuy blue....oh, and they both begin with "B".

As we say when we are watching football-"just let the guys play refs".

[rqlguevarra]

most of the time they use the similar thing to the product, in order to be easily recognize .