MLB files complaint over Brooklyn logo

[Waffles]

From the New York Daily News:

More than 50 years after the Dodgers left Brooklyn, dem Bums are trying to break the borough's spirit yet again.

The Los Angeles team is picking on a local hamburger vendor for using an iconic "Brooklyn" design in its logo.

The latest slight by the baseball club that infamously bolted New York after the 1957 season is giving Brooklynites a brand-new reason to curse the traitors.

And none more than Alan Buxbaum, the furious owner of Brooklyn Burger.

His shop's logo features the classic cursive "Brooklyn" lettering made famous by the Dodgers, with a shot of the Brooklyn Bridge in the background.

Buxbaum was approved for a trademark in April, and all was well until the Dodgers filed an official complaint with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last week .

"There is no Brooklyn Dodgers; they don't exist anymore. They left Brooklyn," fumed the 56-year-old Buxbaum, a proud son of Midwood. "You can't keep everything forever."

For comparison:

EDIT: Update from the Los Angeles Times:

The Dodgers said they did not actually file the complaint, but that it came from Major League Baseball, which typically monitors when another entity is using a team's trademarked property.

MLB spokesman Matt Bourne confirmed the trademark violation was not filed by the Dodgers, as the New York Daily News had reported.

"We filed the complaint on behalf of the Dodgers," Bourne said. "As MLB, we are obligated by law to protect our trademarks or we are at risk of losing them. We filed the notice of opposition with the trademark office in order to keep our options open. We are continuing to examine the situation."

[JQK]

I know that the Dodgers are on good legal footing, but it doesn't mean i have to like it...

[Buster]

If he was approved by the trademark office, it's his to use. If MLB doesn't like it, they need to take it up with the Feds that approved it, not the business owner.

[STL FANATIC]

If he was approved by the trademark office, it's his to use. If MLB doesn't like it, they need to take it up with the Feds that approved it, not the business owner.

Which is exactly what they did. They filed a complaint with the trademark office and are now on record as protecting the mark.

You may well see the company be allowed to use the logo (or maybe not), but it would be through a formal agreement.

[Shmee]

If the US Patent and Trademark review board couldn't tell the difference between the two logos shown below, this unfortunate guy doesn't have a chance.

[LEWJ]

If the US Patent and Trademark review board couldn't tell the difference between the two logos shown below, this unfortunate guy doesn't have a chance.

+1

I will never understand that^^

Pitiful, and a shame.

[winters in buffalo]

If he was approved by the trademark office, it's his to use. If MLB doesn't like it, they need to take it up with the Feds that approved it, not the business owner.

Not exactly. The trademark approval can be reversed if a challenge is made.

[NJTank]

What a joke, I guess the McCourts need more money to haggle about in divorce court.

[KCScout76]

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, US Patent and Trademark review board states that if the logo is similar but there is a 20% difference, that is acceptable to make it different from the original. (how you measure that I'm not an expert.

[pcgd]

You don't measure it cause that's not true. There is no percent rule when it comes to trademark and copyright law...

They can't keep things forever...unless they have continuously used that mark to sell on product. They never "gave up" the B or the text, its always been property of MLB.

But, I can see the argument from both sides. They at least changed the script a bit which is more than most small businesses do, but it clearly was inspired by the old brooklyn text. There really is no overlap in product or anything, there is not really to be confusion in the marketplace. So in reality although this company could have done something more original, there really is no reason for MLB to be upset...except...

...MLB must protect their marks. This isn't a money grab, its simply them proving that they are protecting that script so they don't lose an argument in the future when someone is using that script to sell on t-shirts or something that does overlap.

Here's what could happen. Some t-shirt shop in Brooklyn starts selling t-shirts with the Brooklyn cursive mark. MLB finds out and files a C&D letter. They continue doing it so it goes to the courts. The t-shirt shop will try to prove that MLB no longer has claim to that mark because they have failed to protect it. They would then offer up other ways they've allowed that particular mark to be used without MLB stepping in. Now MLB can show this case and pretty much nip that in the butt and win. If they didn't have this case or any others, its possible that t-shirt shop could win.

[Gothamite]

If the US Patent and Trademark review board couldn't tell the difference between the two logos shown below, this unfortunate guy doesn't have a chance.

+1

I will never understand that^^

Pitiful, and a shame.

You're ignoring the fact that Southern California already had a registration on the letters "SC", and had for years before South Carolina decided they wanted to use it as well. Southern California has been using an interlocking SC logo since at least the 1940s, while Carolina created their version in 2002.

Carolina picked the fight while trying to revoke that registration. It's like the NFL complaining about the verdict American Needle v. NFL, a case they themselves decided to take to the Supreme Court.

I know that nuance doesn't always translate to InterWebs message boards, but still.

[oddball]

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, US Patent and Trademark review board states that if the logo is similar but there is a 20% difference, that is acceptable to make it different from the original. (how you measure that I'm not an expert.

You are completely wrong. There is no percentage rule. That is a 100% complete myth. Here's the truth of the matter, if a logo from Company A looks like Company B's and can be mistaken by someone for Company B's logo, it's a trademark infringement.

Of course to blame the Dodgers is foolish, as they did not file this petition, MLB did. Then again, the Dodger did get their panties in a wad about vendors selling "Los Dojers" shirts, and they made them stop only to start selling them inside the stadium.

[KCScout76]

Thank you for the correction on the 20% rule. Our school district was told, by lawyers, that if we changed the logo by 20%, we could use it as our own. Instead we went a different direction and had a total new package developed (by folks right here on the CC boards!). I wasn't sure of the law, just repeating what I was told.

[omnivore]

I can understand why they're doing it, mostly to prevent the floodgates from opening.

[Mac the Knife]

The "benchmark question" is whether Mark A can be distinguished from Mark B by a reasonable person, without confusion. In this case, I'd say it's logical that, provided the whole "Brooklyn Burger" logo is what is trademarked, there should be no issue.

An alternate question is what categorizations MLB's "Brooklyn" trademark is classified under. It's my understanding (granted, I'm no lawyer) that unless MLB lists food products among the items it uses the mark in connection with, and is granted a trademark with that among its use categories, it essentially has little to no case. On a copyright perspective it certainly might, but not from a trademark perspective.

UPDATE: I just visited the company's web site, and now see the point of contention - the burger place is selling merchandise featuring their logo... which MLB essentially has to try to stop, as that's definitely a trademark category they've registered that mark under.