Coca-Cola sues restaurant over name

[Jimmy!]

Even more ridiculous:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/8282967.stm

So does that mean Fiasco and I have to change our screen names?

[Puck]

>yawn< Just another example of greedy corporations with too many lawyers and not enough to do. Any judge worth the air they breathe will toss this out.

Yeah!

Who do they think they are, protecting intellectual property, an' all that? Who appointed them to decide the laws?

If it has merit, I'm in full agreement. This case doesn't. The two logos aren't even close to being similar.

Totally agree with this comment. What's Coke protecting? I can't put my finger on which Coke product uses an Old English font, much less a 2nd line of Chiller.

[Buster]

Even more ridiculous:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/8282967.stm

So does that mean Fiasco and I have to change our screen names?

No, but when Jimmy John's sees one of your posts, look out.

[fumbler]

Can't this English bloke sue coke for using his language?

[Gothamite]

>yawn< Just another example of greedy corporations with too many lawyers and not enough to do. Any judge worth the air they breathe will toss this out.

Yeah!

Who do they think they are, protecting intellectual property, an' all that? Who appointed them to decide the laws?

If it has merit, I'm in full agreement. This case doesn't. The two logos aren't even close to being similar.

Totally agree with this comment. What's Coke protecting? I can't put my finger on which Coke product uses an Old English font, much less a 2nd line of Chiller.

Read the article - it's a UK-only energy drink named "Relentless" which uses an Old English-style font, which they have trademarked. Now comes along a steakhouse which uses the same name and color scheme and a similar font.

Are the two identical? No. Of course not. But could a reasonable person look at the steakhouse logo and think it has something to do with the energy drink? Absolutely.

I don't know much about British trademark law, but it looks like Coke has a hell of a case.

[mjrbaseball]

Many of us on this board are design experts, or at least have experience in design or well-versed in the concepts. Therefore we have the mindset to notice the differences in the logos. A key factor in the legal world is whether the general public, on a quick glance, would be atuned to the difference. Using that criteria, I think Coca-Cola may have a case here. In these litigious times, even the smallest of businesses would be wise to do a very basic trademark search, and avoid anything that comes close to something else -- especially something by one of the "big boys" like Coke.

[IceCap]

Many of us on this board are design experts, or at least have experience in design or well-versed in the concepts. Therefore we have the mindset to notice the differences in the logos. A key factor in the legal world is whether the general public, on a quick glance, would be atuned to the difference. Using that criteria, I think Coca-Cola may have a case here. In these litigious times, even the smallest of businesses would be wise to do a very basic trademark search, and avoid anything that comes close to something else -- especially something by one of the "big boys" like Coke.

You and Goth have great points, actually.

Something else to consider. A company loses their ability to successfully defend their trademarks if they've failed to do so in the past. This may be a case where the restaurant signage is JUST close enough that Coke feels the need to act.

[altosax29b]

>yawn< Just another example of greedy corporations with too many lawyers and not enough to do. Any judge worth the air they breathe will toss this out.

Yeah!

Who do they think they are, protecting intellectual property, an' all that? Who appointed them to decide the laws?

If it has merit, I'm in full agreement. This case doesn't. The two logos aren't even close to being similar.

Totally agree with this comment. What's Coke protecting? I can't put my finger on which Coke product uses an Old English font, much less a 2nd line of Chiller.

Read the article - it's a UK-only energy drink named "Relentless" which uses an Old English-style font, which they have trademarked. Now comes along a steakhouse which uses the same name and color scheme and a similar font.

Are the two identical? No. Of course not. But could a reasonable person look at the steakhouse logo and think it has something to do with the energy drink? Absolutely.

I don't know much about British trademark law, but it looks like Coke has a hell of a case.

I agree. I just find it hard to believe that people can look at that and think "Oh, those are TOTALLY different". I think some of you guys need to take a step back and stop analyzing it so closely. The bottom line is that the two wordmarks are extremely easy to confuse with one another. If I put one in front of any of you I guarantee a lot of you wouldn't know which is which.