The capital is already at hand, the plan has been laid out and the place is just perfect. Most importantly, you just came up with an imaginative name that could spark up the business venture you've been envisioning for so long. But no matter how much thought has been put forth to produce such name, you can never be certain that no other else has created the same, hence, you do not know for sure, at least not right away, that the name or the label is completely yours. In such case, you might opt for another one which is more unique and will make your business stand out. This scenario practically illustrates the essence of trademarks.
[...] Havoline Oil Co., where it was decided that cannot be equitable for a well-informed merchant with knowledge of a claimed invasion of right, to wait to see how successful his competitor will be and then destroy with the aid of a court decree, much that the competitor has striven for and accomplished--especially in a case where the most that can be said is that the trade-mark infringement is a genuinely debatable question”. Again, other factors accounted for the decision that the court put down. In essence, how a trademark is pronounced including spelling and sounds is a part of its characteristics that maintain the identity of the product or service. Business owners should always be reminded that trademarks serve the purpose of being identified and known, if not famous. To make things simple, once a trademark brings confusion, then it no longer identifies that sole product or service only. [...]
[...] Yes, it is possible that an owner might not infringe a trademark by intention but then again, there is no way to know whether an action is intentional or not. Therefore, the only way to run a business smoothly is to check all obstacles that might not along the way. If legal opinion is not accessible right away, then other means to sort out the issue are possible such as the internet. The World Wide Web is a good venue to verify if some other companies own the chosen trademark already. [...]
[...] for instance, trademark protection is covered both by the state and federal laws but main federal statute is the Lanham Act, which was enacted in 1946 and most recently amended in 1996” (“Overview of Trademark Further, if one has a business venture and wants to obtain protection for the its trademark, the latter should be registered first. Registration constitutes nationwide constructive notice to others that the trademark is owned by the party (“Overview of Trademark Applications can be filed at the U.S. [...]
[...] Keep in mind that, if something or somebody else owns your trademark already, legitimacy aside, then that is not your trademark anymore for it does not make your business stand out from the rest. You would not want a business that lacks identity, would you? Works Cited Datta, M. (2001). Choosing a trademark. American Journalism Review Volume: 23. Retrieved April from [http://www.questia.com/read/5000871431?title=Choosing%20a%20Trademark] Dogan, S. & Lemley, M. (2006). What the right of publicity can learn from trademark law. Stanford Law Review Retrieved April from [http://www.questia.com/reader/action/nextPage/5014750200] Ebenkamp, B. [...]
[...] Applying it in the present case, it can therefore be deduce that indeed a particular trademark is infringed for by the word, ‘similar', it means not just the same all throughout but rather the same in some aspects. As a matter of fact, a trademark (actually) be color distinctive sound” (Green, 2004). More explicitly, “using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion” (“Overview of Trademark Nonetheless, even if the examples mentioned above (Sysco & Cistco; Cosco & Costco) indeed resulted to confusion, it should be noticed that such thing happened only in terms of what kind of product the subjects perceive it to be therefore, in a way, it is not actually a violation of the law. [...]
using our reader.