EA sues EA over logo.

[14er]

There are only so many ways to put an E and an A together.

[RETROJR79]

This would actually be a good logo for EA if they decide to change their logo.

[andrewharrington]

I think EA has every right to go after any other company that tries to advertise with those initials. It's just like the University of Washington or the University of Wisconsin going after groups that try to use a "W" as their logo.

You can't own the general use of a W, but you can own a specific W, as Wisconsin and Washington both do. Conversely, threatening or filing suit as often as possible strengthens your case for future infringements. Rigorously defending your trademarks generally makes it more likely that the court will find in your favor when others try to infringe on your IP.

[aawagner011]

I think EA has every right to go after any other company that tries to advertise with those initials. It's just like the University of Washington or the University of Wisconsin going after groups that try to use a "W" as their logo.

You can't own the general use of a W, but you can own a specific W, as Wisconsin and Washington both do. Conversely, threatening or filing suit as often as possible strengthens your case for future infringements. Rigorously defending your trademarks generally makes it more likely that the court will find in your favor when others try to infringe on your IP.

Going along with that (and not directed at Andrew, just general info), the reason all these schools and teams go after unlicensed usage of their logos is for fear of losing the trademark rights. A trademark may only be held if the owner does everything to PROTECT it. If it becomes so generic and the owner does not do everything to protect its licensed use, they may possible risk losing the trademark.

You know zippers? Used to be a trademarked term, but became so generic and watered down that they lost their trademark rights. There are many other examples like this.

[RedSox44]

They're definitely similar, but I'm not sure if they're similar enough to warrant all this.

Slightly off-track, I never figured out why EA Sports switched logos back in the late '90s. Not a whole lot changed, but apparently they decided it was necessary?

to

When did EA change the "A" from a star shape to just an "A"? I never noticed that, I looked at all my EA SPORTS games (Genesis, Saturn era) and the all have the star.

In 1999, with the release of NHL 2000 or Triple Play 2000 and the like.

I.E.

NHL 99, released Oct. 1998

Note the star logo.

NHL 2000, released Sept. 1999.

Note the modern logo.

Personally, I always thought the original EA Sports logo looked more like EM Sports.

[andrewharrington]

I think EA has every right to go after any other company that tries to advertise with those initials. It's just like the University of Washington or the University of Wisconsin going after groups that try to use a "W" as their logo.

You can't own the general use of a W, but you can own a specific W, as Wisconsin and Washington both do. Conversely, threatening or filing suit as often as possible strengthens your case for future infringements. Rigorously defending your trademarks generally makes it more likely that the court will find in your favor when others try to infringe on your IP.

Going along with that (and not directed at Andrew, just general info), the reason all these schools and teams go after unlicensed usage of their logos is for fear of losing the trademark rights. A trademark may only be held if the owner does everything to PROTECT it. If it becomes so generic and the owner does not do everything to protect its licensed use, they may possible risk losing the trademark.

You know zippers? Used to be a trademarked term, but became so generic and watered down that they lost their trademark rights. There are many other examples like this.

This is actually a good point. Many people think that it's the ultimate status symbol for a brand to become so synonymous with its product that people often refer to the product as the brand name. Think Kleenex, JELL-O, Band-Aid, etc. In actuality, this means the brand name has become 'generic' and the trademark has basically been lost. This is why, for example, it legally must be referred to as 'JELL-O Brand Gelatin' on packaging and commercials. Basically, the term 'JELL-O' became generic and in order to protect it, it must be called out that it is, in fact, a brand name and not a product.

Law is such a funny, complex thing.

[aawagner011]

I think EA has every right to go after any other company that tries to advertise with those initials. It's just like the University of Washington or the University of Wisconsin going after groups that try to use a "W" as their logo.

You can't own the general use of a W, but you can own a specific W, as Wisconsin and Washington both do. Conversely, threatening or filing suit as often as possible strengthens your case for future infringements. Rigorously defending your trademarks generally makes it more likely that the court will find in your favor when others try to infringe on your IP.

Going along with that (and not directed at Andrew, just general info), the reason all these schools and teams go after unlicensed usage of their logos is for fear of losing the trademark rights. A trademark may only be held if the owner does everything to PROTECT it. If it becomes so generic and the owner does not do everything to protect its licensed use, they may possible risk losing the trademark.

You know zippers? Used to be a trademarked term, but became so generic and watered down that they lost their trademark rights. There are many other examples like this.

This is actually a good point. Many people think that it's the ultimate status symbol for a brand to become so synonymous with its product that people often refer to the product as the brand name. Think Kleenex, JELL-O, Band-Aid, etc. In actuality, this means the brand name has become 'generic' and the trademark has basically been lost. This is why, for example, it legally must be referred to as 'JELL-O Brand Gelatin' on packaging and commercials. Basically, the term 'JELL-O' became generic and in order to protect it, it must be called out that it is, in fact, a brand name and not a product.

Law is such a funny, complex thing.

Yep, hit the nail on the head. One example in particular that always has me wondering is the case of Google. At what point does the term "Google" become synonymous with the word search? Or is their more recent expansion into email, social networking, etc broaden the name "Google" to encompass more than searching? Then again, I always suppose you won't use the phrase "let me Google that" and then go to bing.com. Do you think there is any possible brand dilution and generic name possibility with Google?

[JayJaxon]

I think EA is just mad because this little known company has a better logo than them

[drdougfresh]

I think EA has every right to go after any other company that tries to advertise with those initials. It's just like the University of Washington or the University of Wisconsin going after groups that try to use a "W" as their logo.

You can't own the general use of a W, but you can own a specific W, as Wisconsin and Washington both do. Conversely, threatening or filing suit as often as possible strengthens your case for future infringements. Rigorously defending your trademarks generally makes it more likely that the court will find in your favor when others try to infringe on your IP.

Going along with that (and not directed at Andrew, just general info), the reason all these schools and teams go after unlicensed usage of their logos is for fear of losing the trademark rights. A trademark may only be held if the owner does everything to PROTECT it. If it becomes so generic and the owner does not do everything to protect its licensed use, they may possible risk losing the trademark.

You know zippers? Used to be a trademarked term, but became so generic and watered down that they lost their trademark rights. There are many other examples like this.

This is actually a good point. Many people think that it's the ultimate status symbol for a brand to become so synonymous with its product that people often refer to the product as the brand name. Think Kleenex, JELL-O, Band-Aid, etc. In actuality, this means the brand name has become 'generic' and the trademark has basically been lost. This is why, for example, it legally must be referred to as 'JELL-O Brand Gelatin' on packaging and commercials. Basically, the term 'JELL-O' became generic and in order to protect it, it must be called out that it is, in fact, a brand name and not a product.

Law is such a funny, complex thing.

Yep, hit the nail on the head. One example in particular that always has me wondering is the case of Google. At what point does the term "Google" become synonymous with the word search? Or is their more recent expansion into email, social networking, etc broaden the name "Google" to encompass more than searching? Then again, I always suppose you won't use the phrase "let me Google that" and then go to bing.com. Do you think there is any possible brand dilution and generic name possibility with Google?

Nope. Talk about a company that defends itself against EVERYTHING under the sun to make sure it is consistently the best/most used. It's so commonly used because of the massive hold on market share and the wide availability of its products.

IMO, it would be like calling any computer an Apple. The brand precedes the products-- in that case, I think it's harder to argue that it would lose its equity. Sure, if Google had never broadened its offering from a product to an entire portfolio, I think it would be easier to imagine. But with the Google brand becoming more prominent than the site itself, I wouldn't say they have anything to worry about.

[andrewharrington]

I think EA has every right to go after any other company that tries to advertise with those initials. It's just like the University of Washington or the University of Wisconsin going after groups that try to use a "W" as their logo.

You can't own the general use of a W, but you can own a specific W, as Wisconsin and Washington both do. Conversely, threatening or filing suit as often as possible strengthens your case for future infringements. Rigorously defending your trademarks generally makes it more likely that the court will find in your favor when others try to infringe on your IP.

Going along with that (and not directed at Andrew, just general info), the reason all these schools and teams go after unlicensed usage of their logos is for fear of losing the trademark rights. A trademark may only be held if the owner does everything to PROTECT it. If it becomes so generic and the owner does not do everything to protect its licensed use, they may possible risk losing the trademark.

You know zippers? Used to be a trademarked term, but became so generic and watered down that they lost their trademark rights. There are many other examples like this.

This is actually a good point. Many people think that it's the ultimate status symbol for a brand to become so synonymous with its product that people often refer to the product as the brand name. Think Kleenex, JELL-O, Band-Aid, etc. In actuality, this means the brand name has become 'generic' and the trademark has basically been lost. This is why, for example, it legally must be referred to as 'JELL-O Brand Gelatin' on packaging and commercials. Basically, the term 'JELL-O' became generic and in order to protect it, it must be called out that it is, in fact, a brand name and not a product.

Law is such a funny, complex thing.

Yep, hit the nail on the head. One example in particular that always has me wondering is the case of Google. At what point does the term "Google" become synonymous with the word search? Or is their more recent expansion into email, social networking, etc broaden the name "Google" to encompass more than searching? Then again, I always suppose you won't use the phrase "let me Google that" and then go to bing.com. Do you think there is any possible brand dilution and generic name possibility with Google?

Nope. Talk about a company that defends itself against EVERYTHING under the sun to make sure it is consistently the best/most used. It's so commonly used because of the massive hold on market share and the wide availability of its products.

IMO, it would be like calling any computer an Apple. The brand precedes the products-- in that case, I think it's harder to argue that it would lose its equity. Sure, if Google had never broadened its offering from a product to an entire portfolio, I think it would be easier to imagine. But with the Google brand becoming more prominent than the site itself, I wouldn't say they have anything to worry about.

Plus there's the other thing that differentiates Google from other brands that have had this happen, like Kleenex, Kool-Aid, Band-Aid and JELL-O: How many of you have ever personally taken money from your pocket and put it into Google's pocket, either directly or indirectly? Not many of you. Their 'product' is essentially free because they make all their money and profits in other ways, and for that reason (as well as the fact that they defend their property well), I don't ever really see the same thing happening to them.

[BrandMooreArt]

i think having a brand name become the general term for the product is quite beneficial. it eliminates competitors. even if your product isnt the best, the brand is. if price made no difference, would you buy any other tissue besides Kleenex? any other. . . i dont even know what, jello besides Jell-O? most dont

[sc49erfan15]

i think having a brand name become the general term for the product is quite beneficial. it eliminates competitors. even if your product isnt the best, the brand is. if price made no difference, would you buy any other tissue besides Kleenex? any other. . . i dont even know what, jello besides Jell-O? most dont

Uhhh...word.

[BBTV]

i think having a brand name become the general term for the product is quite beneficial. it eliminates competitors. even if your product isnt the best, the brand is. if price made no difference, would you buy any other tissue besides Kleenex? any other. . . i dont even know what, jello besides Jell-O? most dont

I disagree with this completely. While at first it certainly implies that the product (Kleenex, Xerox, etc.) is the industry leader and possibly even the only option, as competition catches up and time goes by, it can actually cause those brands to appear generic. For example, we would all say that a bottle of ketchup that is just labeled "KETCHUP" instead of "Heinz" or "Hunts" would be like a generic store brand. Well, while probably not as extreme, the same could be said for a box of kleenexes just labeled "KLEENEX".

[BrandMooreArt]

i see that as well. im not up to date with the tissue sales, but i have to believe Kleenex is still at the top of its market (maybe number 2), for example. the only competitor i can think of is Puffs. i just dont think being generic in these markets hurts. and having that brand name ingrained into everyones vocabulary assures brand recognition for generations. but maybe its different for different markets? honestly, i cant say that either side is true for every market.

[aawagner011]

i see that as well. im not up to date with the tissue sales, but i have to believe Kleenex is still at the top of its market (maybe number 2), for example. the only competitor i can think of is Puffs. i just dont think being generic in these markets hurts. and having that brand name ingrained into everyones vocabulary assures brand recognition for generations. but maybe its different for different markets? honestly, i cant say that either side is true for every market.

While this is true that if your brand becomes the "go-to" term for the product, you must have a majority stake in the market (because your brand name IS the product), it can be harmful.

If your brand name becomes so synonymous with the product and competition comes in and your brand name becomes watered down, then there is the risk that you could lose the trademark. Just from the wiki page, these are all trademarked products in the US that lost legal protection due to the name becoming generic. These companies must not have acted properly to protect their marks. Also, in response to your point about brand recognition, that recognition is useless if your once protected term is used on every other competitor's labeling. Once Zipper lost their legal rights to the term, competitors were able to use it, so it had no value in being a recognizable brand name...because it wasn't a brand name anymore. It was generic.

* Aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG

* Butterscotch, originally a trademark of S. Parkinson & Sons[citation needed]

* Escalator, originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company[4][5][6]

* Heroin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG

* Kerosene, originally a trademark of Abraham Gesner

* Phillips-head screw, named after Henry F. Phillips[citation needed]

* Pogo for the toy Pogo stick[6][7]

* Thermos, originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH

* Tipp-Ex, originally a trademark of German manufacturers Tipp-Ex GmbH & Co. KG[citation needed]

* Yo-yo, originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company

* Zipper, originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich[6][8]

It just goes to show that if you want the rights to something, you have to do everything in your power to PROTECT IT, otherwise you can risk losing it, just like all these once protected marks became generic.

[FGWB]

I was at the mall the other day and saw that logo.

I did a double-take because I thought it WAS the EA Sports logo.

Too close.

[BrandMooreArt]

i see that as well. im not up to date with the tissue sales, but i have to believe Kleenex is still at the top of its market (maybe number 2), for example. the only competitor i can think of is Puffs. i just dont think being generic in these markets hurts. and having that brand name ingrained into everyones vocabulary assures brand recognition for generations. but maybe its different for different markets? honestly, i cant say that either side is true for every market.

While this is true that if your brand becomes the "go-to" term for the product, you must have a majority stake in the market (because your brand name IS the product), it can be harmful.

If your brand name becomes so synonymous with the product and competition comes in and your brand name becomes watered down, then there is the risk that you could lose the trademark. Just from the wiki page, these are all trademarked products in the US that lost legal protection due to the name becoming generic. These companies must not have acted properly to protect their marks. Also, in response to your point about brand recognition, that recognition is useless if your once protected term is used on every other competitor's labeling. Once Zipper lost their legal rights to the term, competitors were able to use it, so it had no value in being a recognizable brand name...because it wasn't a brand name anymore. It was generic.

* Aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG

* Butterscotch, originally a trademark of S. Parkinson & Sons[citation needed]

* Escalator, originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company[4][5][6]

* Heroin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG

* Kerosene, originally a trademark of Abraham Gesner

* Phillips-head screw, named after Henry F. Phillips[citation needed]

* Pogo for the toy Pogo stick[6][7]

* Thermos, originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH

* Tipp-Ex, originally a trademark of German manufacturers Tipp-Ex GmbH & Co. KG[citation needed]

* Yo-yo, originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company

* Zipper, originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich[6][8]

It just goes to show that if you want the rights to something, you have to do everything in your power to PROTECT IT, otherwise you can risk losing it, just like all these once protected marks became generic.

good stuff, Mr Wagner

[mjrbaseball]

Citing the above list, there is still a company named Thermos, although other companies make the same product. So you can have a Thermos brand thermos, or an Aladdin brand thermos, for example.

(@ aawagner011 -- BTW, you said you got this "from the wiki page", which in itself is a misuse of trademark. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia. Wiki is the software that it uses. It is also used by other sites (notably Wikileaks) which are unrelated to Wikipedia.)

[Stampman]

For example, we would all say that a bottle of ketchup that is just labeled "KETCHUP" instead of "Heinz" or "Hunts" would be like a generic store brand.

If it doesn't say Heinz--it ain't ketchup.