Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[holly]

I have designed two graphics to be used for advertising my web site FastFood.com.  The link to these graphics is:

http://www.fastfood.com/testlogos.htm


I will not only be using them on the site, but also in a direct mailing campaign.  I would appreciate any realistic evaluations on if these are likely to arouse any problems with regard to Copyright or Trademark infringements.

Thanks for your help.

[Isaac]

I have designed two graphics to be used for advertising my web site FastFood.com.  The link to these graphics is:

http://www.fastfood.com/testlogos.htm


I will not only be using them on the site, but also in a direct mailing campaign.  I would appreciate any realistic evaluations on if these are likely to arouse any problems with regard to Copyright or Trademark infringements.

Thanks for your help.

Assuming that your advertising campaign is successful enough to draw attention, your art work seems likely to generate trademark infringement problems.

[JSonnabend]

I agree with Isaac's concerns.  Much of the ultimate analysis (at least on the right-hand mark) rests on the nature of the content of the site.

- Jeff

[holly]

Thank you very much.

Could you please focus on the one on the left.  The one on the right has actual logos which I can change to text, so I am not as concerned about that.

The one on the left I am considering as the actual logo for the site.  I have seen many examples of similar logos used that would appear to me to be much more of a conflict like Wickedwendys.com or McSpotlight.org.  These are controversial sites.

My site only gives general information about fast food, like nutrition, locations, etc.  

Any comments would be appreciated.

[Bill Richards]

Some commentators would find that the sites you cite seem to be using the similar marks in what's called a non-trademark manner merely in reference to the company.  It's like companynamesucks.com, or the like (criticism sites), which have not been found to dilute the marks.  It's not clear, but from what you've written, your site will me somewhat legitimate and not a criticism of any particular company.  That's the difference, I believe.

[JSonnabend]

I think Bill's assessment of the marks is off base.  There is a generally recognized difference between using a word mark when referring to the brand versus using a logo.  I don't believe the latter is generally permitted (or, more precisely, would be permitted if challenged), while the former generally is allowed.  Also, dilution isn't necessarily the issue, but likelihood of confusion and/or false endorsement.

As for the two marks you cited, I think the WickedWendy's logo might sneak through on a parody argument, while the McSpotlight likely would not, as it merely incorporates the McDonald's logo in toto, without alteration.

I don't believe your logo on the left would qualify as a parody because you don't seem to be using it in such a capacity -- you seem to be using it merely to identify your website concerning the fast food industry.  That's strictly a TM use.

- Jeff

[Bill Richards]

While I think we come to the same conclusion, I can't disagree with Jeff's analysis.  I was merely trying to point out that your site was different from the examples you cited.  The problem with your logo on the left is that it may confuse people into believing the site was somehow sponsored by McDonald's.  This is especially true since it appears it may not be an obvious "complaint" site or parody.