More than happy to include Heinz and anyone else associated with Kraft.
A trademark dsipute between Victoria Breckham and an Aussie skincare company has been settled.
Hopefully they will not now try taking VB (Victoria Bitter) to task.
After all, it is probably more effective than both skincare companies products combined as a six pack or two makes women look better even without any makeup.
Based on remarks in the article it seems that the Trademark applications will go ahead with this being noted ââtake all necessary stepsâ for the two trademark applications to proceed to registration.â
This one has a bit more credibility in terms of the likelihood of the consumer being confused. Same industry. Similar name.
My suspicion is that Coles wants to leave room for expansion of the Wine Drop concept into beer, that is, if they were doing anything with the Wine Drop brand.
The article only indicates that they were objecting to the name âbeer dropâ because they have registered âwine dropâ. It doesnât seem to indicate the registration of âbeer dropâ has been refused. It is highly possible that both can be registered by different parties as the term âdropâ is not unique. There are also other related businesses that use the term drop such as Liquor Drop, Gooddrop, Local Drop and the list goes on.
The term âdropâ is synonymous with alcohol.
It would be very easy to respond to the Coles objection to have 'beer drop registered. A petition will not assist their cause as it is the wrong approach.
I find it strange that we see petitions being used as weapons in commercial disputes. I would hope that any authority charged with resolving such matters would disregard petitions as a matter of course.
So would I ⊠but I donât think thatâs the point.
The point is that a petition will make the behaviour of the company more widely known and might change the commercial equation for the company (the bully boy) in pursuing the action.
Conversely, it generates publicity for the other party (the little guy).
Does it make a difference? Who knows. 24,900+ people signed that petition. Small beer for Coles. Not just a drop in the ocean for The Beer Drop.
An interesting outcome regarding a trademark challenge.
The latest instalment.
Similarities are like comparing Apples with OrangesâŠwhoops, I meant Pears.
Just another disgraceful example of large bully boy corporations riding roughshod over the little guy.
The survey in the article asks if readers would be confused with the Apple logo, and out of some 11,174 respondents, 96% said that they would not.
Meanwhile, Land Rover gets a smackdown on trying to trademark their original 4WD design.
Who would want to trademark anything as hideous as the original Land Rover?
Apples and Pears?
An Apple, or fruit?
Is it only Apple Inc that canât tell the difference between their half eaten fruit and any other sort of fruit? There are some great logos around for cherries and grapes too.
Struth, it doesnât even look like a pear. I actually thought: lightbulb.
On the face of it, Apple has really had to stretch things even to claim that they are in the same market - before it would become relevant whether confusion is possible.
This case could result in a tie in with Secrecy, privacy, security, intrusion - #400 by SueW (about Apple having a monopoly over the content of its AppStore) i.e. were Apple, win lose or draw, to block this companyâs app from the AppStore.
Aboriginal flag still causing aggravation ⊠https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-18/aboriginal-flag-to-be-absent-for-afl-indigenous-round/12569346
One episode of âThai Street Food With Davidâ this afternoon on SBS Food TV revealed that Sriracha Sauce originated in the Thailand city of Sri Racha.
What you don't know about Sriracha: 11 fun facts from a documentary.
I am amazed that no corporates have apparently attempted to trademark âSrirachaâ which is now a global icon, but I would not be surprised in the least if Kraft tried to do so respectively.
A âbun fightâ between Hungry Jackâs and Maccas.
https://kitchen.nine.com.au/latest/food-controversies/523415a5-669f-4698-809b-41962b0e578f#1
I canât see why Maccas are having a dummy spit as there is an unmistakeable difference.
Unlike the Big Mac, the Big Jack may be fit for human consumption.
Plenty of use of âBigâ to denote products combined with a proper noun or name.
EG The Big Banana, The Big Mango, The Big Pineapple. All are tourist attractions although named after fruit.
For burgers, it seems a Maccas are just being silly and only giving Burger King more free publicity. Ownership of Big to describe a product of a business is long established. There are plenty of other examples of products, edible or not that are âThe Big âŠâ where the blank is a common first name.
Some may be more appropriate than others. Johnâs Burger Shop, East Bentleigh, Vic has a great selection. None are called big. Common sense suggests a burger marketed as âThe Big Johnâ might not send quite the best message?
âThe Big Macâ is it really a burger or just another truck?
P.S.
the net will turn up many surprises, some unwanted when you start looking for products that are âThe Big ⊠â?
Itâs a complex world âThe Big Mac Truckâ, is full of innocence per the Frankston Library.
The same title can also lead to more adult themed products. Should Maccas be more paternalistic of itâs branding and protect all use of âBig Macâ?
Trade Mark law allows much freedom not to.
I just finished watching an absolutely fantastic documentary on SBS TV regarding the history of Rolls Royce.
It included a hilarious bit regarding when Vickers wanted to sell the car division that they had bought and Volkswagon and BMW had a bidding war that Volkswagon won with an offer of ÂŁ430 million for the factory, the engineering, the design, etc, but later found out that the brand name âRolls Royceâ and the logo belonged to the Rolls Royce aircraft engine company who refused to sell them.
BWM paid the aircraft company ÂŁ40 million for the license to use the name and the logo for cars and built a brand new factory and produced all their own desings.
Classic.
An article regarding the MLA losing a court case over trying to stop US companies controlling the genetics of Australian livestock.
An article regarding the Senate Committeeâs hearing on the Aboriginal Flag.