• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

legality of slang

sadhatter

Philosopher
sadhatter
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
8,694
So this thread may use some regional products, i apologize if if is unclear at any point...

So, this thread is in regards to slang terms for buisnesses. McD's, Bk, things of that nature.

To explain...

Around here we have a brand of cigarettes called DuMaurier Kings. Commonly referred to as DK's. Now a while back ( years.) a cheap cigarette company made a brand called DK's.

And this got me wondering , how the legality works in regards to this.

For example, if i were to name a restaurant McD's, or an orange drink Sunny D, etc. Is there any problems in doing that? ( not that i am planning on it, i just find it kind of interesting. )

Seeing as a lot of popular products go by nicknames, it seems to me that said nicknames could have a legal connection to the proper ones.
 
If it's trademarked (as Sunny D is), it's off-limits. If not, go for it.

Most of the really popular ones are probably trademarked, where possible.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
If it's trademarked (as Sunny D is), it's off-limits. If not, go for it.

Most of the really popular ones are probably trademarked, where possible.
Click to expand...

Interesting, the only reason i ask is the only example i can think of i get from " The reserve" , and the products known to be sold there, while not illegal, are definitely "grey area".

It seems to me, trademarking slang names for things asap would be a mildly lucrative business if someone was good at figuring out which products were likely to succeed.
 
Rasmus said:
IANAL, but I think trademarks expire if they aren't used.
Click to expand...

You are correct, sir. (To summarize, the Brooklyn Dodgers lost the right to the trademark because of non-use.)

Fun fact: On the final day of intellectual property class, my professor brought in Brooklyn Dodgers Beer because of this case. Man he was cool. The beer was "meh", though.
 
I think McDonald's did trademark Mickey D's.

If you look on the bottom of a King Dons box, you will see they've trademarked common variations, including "Ding Dongs". In some places they use the latter as the name.
 
Two basic points:

1. Trademark rights are not acquired only by filing a formal trademark registration. (And, for that matter, even registered trademarks can be disputed.) If someone has been using a mark in commerce, they can acquire trademark rights (sometimes called "common law trademark"). If you're checking to see if someone else has trademark rights in a particular mark, you can't just check the government registries and call it a day.

2. You can infringe a trademark not only by using the exact same mark, but also by using any mark that is "confusingly similar" to another mark.

So even if there is no formal trademark registration for, e.g. "McD's", you could still be liable on the grounds that it is still a trademark of McDonald's Corp., and/or that it is confusingly similar to their trademark "McDonald's."
 
Havent mcdonalds tried to copyright (or trademark?) the mc prefix for anything food related? If I tried to sell a mcpizza or mcchips they'd be sending me a nasty letter pretty quick I think ......
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
Havent mcdonalds tried to copyright (or trademark?) the mc prefix for anything food related? If I tried to sell a mcpizza or mcchips they'd be sending me a nasty letter pretty quick I think ......
Click to expand...

Don't worry, your business plan is still a winner; just change the names to iPizza and iChips

;)
 
Dunstan said:
Two basic points:

1. Trademark rights are not acquired only by filing a formal trademark registration. (And, for that matter, even registered trademarks can be disputed.) If someone has been using a mark in commerce, they can acquire trademark rights (sometimes called "common law trademark"). If you're checking to see if someone else has trademark rights in a particular mark, you can't just check the government registries and call it a day.

2. You can infringe a trademark not only by using the exact same mark, but also by using any mark that is "confusingly similar" to another mark.

So even if there is no formal trademark registration for, e.g. "McD's", you could still be liable on the grounds that it is still a trademark of McDonald's Corp., and/or that it is confusingly similar to their trademark "McDonald's."
Click to expand...

i wonder then, how DK's are getting away with it. I mean as of before they were popular DK's refered to one thing, now i seldom hear anyone use DK's to refer to the original product.
 
sadhatter said:
i wonder then, how DK's are getting away with it. I mean as of before they were popular DK's refered to one thing, now i seldom hear anyone use DK's to refer to the original product.
Click to expand...

If that's so, then it's certainly too late for DuMaurier to sue. Now it would be the "cheap cigarette company" that has the trademark rights to "DKs," since their product appears to be the one consumers associate with the term. If DuMaurier started labelling its product "DKs," they might find themselves as a defendant.

As to why DuMaurier didn't take action at the outset, I couldn't really say. (Perhaps it did, and lost or settled.) Maybe the "DK" nickname was too local a thing, or the company just didn't care enough. Maybe cigarette companies figure they spend too much on legal fees already.

Also, remember that the name alone isn't the only factor. A court would consider the packaging, the way in which cigarettes are purchased and advertised, and other factors. Remember, the question is really, "is a significant number of customers going to buy 'DKs' thinking they are buying the DuMaurier product (or another product made or sponsored by it)?" It's not enough that consumers think, "oh, hey, their name is kind of like what we all call DuMaurier's." Trademark law is about preventing consumer confusion. (Except for trademark dilution, but that's a whole 'nother story.)
 
I concur with what Dunstan said above.

(And, btw, sadhatter, I've never heard anyone call DuMaurier Kings "DKs" but I do recognize the name DKs as a "rez brand" so I think it might indeed just be a regional thing).
 
Not much to add, just an observation that Kentucky Fried Chicken, in an attempt to appear more healthy and avoid the word "fried", spent some time advertising as KFC, which up until then had just been an unofficial but popular nickname. I think they've since gone back to the full name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom