I have a customer that basically wants to use the Hillary H for the beginning of his name and "I'M WITH HIM." I just want to know how much it would have to be changed to be legal. I am thinking it is not a good idea to do but want concrete basis to decline or give them an option.
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
How much does a logo need to be changed to use
- Thread starter stonetree
- Start date
Marlene
New Member
a logo that is registered belongs to no one for their use with a slight change. if when you get done with the change it looks anything at all like the original it still is the logo and nope, not yours to use. since any changes made would have to make it totally different from the origninal, it seems pretty stupid to start with it in the first place
shoresigns
New Member
This is an issue of trademark, not copyright. What you've described is how copyrights work, i.e. you're infringing if you use any part of a copyrighted work (fair use exemptions notwithstanding), because derivative works are not allowed.
With trademarks, it is possible to use recognizable portions of a trademarked logo without infringing. The line is not drawn at whether or not you've used part of the trademarked logo, but rather the line is drawn at whether or not your work is likely to be confused with the trademarked work. For example, if you use the Hillary "H" to make something that is clearly a parody and a reasonable person would not confuse it as being created or endorsed by the Hillary campaign, then you're not infringing.
I should also clarify that if the logo in question was a more complex design, it could be both copyrighted and trademarked. Simple logo designs generally do not qualify for copyright protection as the law does not consider them to have any creative or artistic merit.
I figured on some interesting responses for this particular logo. I have several designers working for me and are usually very careful but they don't quite agree on this one. I may post what I'm talking about just for fun. It did make me wonder the actual basis used on anybody that was busted for it. It also made me wonder if it who would actually object, if it had to be lawyers from say the Clinton camp I think they have enough to worry about.
Correct Color
New Member
Actually, there's no indication the Hillary logo is a registered trademark, or that they wish to claim it as a trademark at all.
If it was registered, it would have a ® somewhere near it. If they were claiming it as a trademark but had not registered it, it would have a ™. Since it has neither, and since the mark has no value at this point at all, I'd feel pretty safe using it.
My only reservation would be that it's such a butt-ugly f*cking mark.
If it was registered, it would have a ® somewhere near it. If they were claiming it as a trademark but had not registered it, it would have a ™. Since it has neither, and since the mark has no value at this point at all, I'd feel pretty safe using it.
My only reservation would be that it's such a butt-ugly f*cking mark.
shoresigns
New Member
Haha good point. That completely negates my previous response. It isn't trademarked but there is a pending application.
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval
eahicks
Magna Cum Laude - School of Hard Knocks
SignProPlus-Chip
New Member
That's completely wrong. A Trademark does not need to have a TM or ® next to it to be protected. The TM an ® marks may be place next to the mark of trade to show they are protected, but to exclude them does not eliminate/limit protection.
From an article at Forbes.com:
There is no requirement to use the TM or SM symbols and their use has no legal significance, but it is wise to do so. When you use the TM or SM, you notify the public of your claim of branding rights in a particular mark and in turn dissuade others from adopting the same or similar mark for the same or similar products or services. This staves off unwitting trademark infringement, which disrupts the free trade of goods and services in the marketplace.
Use of the federal registration symbol, however, is regulated by federal law. You may only use the symbol with a federally registered mark and as applied to the goods and/or services listed in the registration. While you are not legally required to use the symbol, failure to use it is not without consequence. In an enforcement action, you will forfeit your right to recover lost profits and money damages unless you can prove the defendant had actual knowledge that your mark was registered prior to the infringing activity. This can be a very high burden and one unnecessary to bear.
Forbes Welcome
Plus this article shows they filed to register her mark back in 2015:
Hillary Clinton campaign files to protect logo and trademarks - Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC – The Nontraditional Trademark Lawyers(R)
From an article at Forbes.com:
There is no requirement to use the TM or SM symbols and their use has no legal significance, but it is wise to do so. When you use the TM or SM, you notify the public of your claim of branding rights in a particular mark and in turn dissuade others from adopting the same or similar mark for the same or similar products or services. This staves off unwitting trademark infringement, which disrupts the free trade of goods and services in the marketplace.
Use of the federal registration symbol, however, is regulated by federal law. You may only use the symbol with a federally registered mark and as applied to the goods and/or services listed in the registration. While you are not legally required to use the symbol, failure to use it is not without consequence. In an enforcement action, you will forfeit your right to recover lost profits and money damages unless you can prove the defendant had actual knowledge that your mark was registered prior to the infringing activity. This can be a very high burden and one unnecessary to bear.
Forbes Welcome
Plus this article shows they filed to register her mark back in 2015:
Hillary Clinton campaign files to protect logo and trademarks - Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC – The Nontraditional Trademark Lawyers(R)
Gino
Premium Subscriber
That's almost 2 years ago and she failed miserably, since. Using something that was filed, but never completed does not count anywhere. Again, use it if you want, but like mentioned, why pattern yourself after a loser and a big loser at that ??
Kentucky Wraps
Kentucky Wraps
Well there's "derivatives" and there's "satirical" uses of logos. Satirical are basically derivatives. These get into grey/gray areas with legal.
GAC05
Quit buggin' me
But, could you color match it on an HP latex printer more than once?
signbrad
New Member
Stylized letters don't qualify for copyright protection.
In a circular published by the US Copyright Office, in the section that describes things that cannot be protected by copyright, it includes "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring..."
Regarding trademark, Hillary For America has applied for two trademark registrations for the 'H' logo, one in color (86595041) and the other in black & white (86595037). They were not listed as officially registered as of December 2016. HFA has filed the logo as an "Intent To Use" rather than an "In Use" mark. And they have filed two 6-month extensions since then. They can do this for three years before they have to file a "Statement Of Use." Otherwise, the mark will be considered "abandoned."
Though the 'H' logo is not registered, that doesn't mean that it cannot be protected.
The test for trademark infringement is whether a competing mark is "confusingly similar." In other words, would a person looking at a similar mark conclude that it came from or represents Hillary For America. Would an "I'm For Him" T-shirt with the logo be confused with HFA or would it be seen as humor? I know what I would think.
The real question I have is why HFA didn't finish the process of registering the logo in the first place. It is not because it's cheaper to file an "Intent To Use." It's actually more expensive than a simple "In Use" application. And each extension costs 150 dollars for each category that's claimed. I counted 12 categories just for the color logo (times two extensions so far). Why not just finish the registration process and be done with it?
Interestingly, Donald Trump filed a trademark registration for the phrase "Make America Great Again" in 2012, just six days after President Obama defeated Mitt Romney to win a second term of presidency.
Trump has filed many trademark applications, something like 170, mostly in connection with his businesses. Many of them are dead. Two that made me smile: Trump Vodka, and Trump The Fragrance.
Make America smell great again?
Brad in Kansas City
I'm not sure why people are talking politics when someone is talking trade marks.
The simple answer is it's likely infringement. You're taking artwork created by someone else and slapping a few words next to it. It's the equivalent of taking Amazon's logo and making a logo "Amazon Bus Tours".
The long answer is there is a case that you're using the artwork in parody/satire. There is legal precedence that allows you to use logos/artwork that you didn't create if you're able to argue you're using it in a satirical way. You could argue that's the case in this situation. The rub with this is, you need a lawyer to argue this type of case. If he was sued (which I'll admit is probably unlikely), he'd have to spend mega bucks defending himself. More often than not, you just drop it after you get the cease and desist letter, but many have argued and won this type of case. They also typically are lawyers or have a friend that's a lawyer. This way they avoid the tens of thousands of dollars in fees.
I'd explain this to him. Have him sign a waiver saying the logo is for use as a parody/satire. Then whip up the artwork. That should enough to cover yourself.
The simple answer is it's likely infringement. You're taking artwork created by someone else and slapping a few words next to it. It's the equivalent of taking Amazon's logo and making a logo "Amazon Bus Tours".
The long answer is there is a case that you're using the artwork in parody/satire. There is legal precedence that allows you to use logos/artwork that you didn't create if you're able to argue you're using it in a satirical way. You could argue that's the case in this situation. The rub with this is, you need a lawyer to argue this type of case. If he was sued (which I'll admit is probably unlikely), he'd have to spend mega bucks defending himself. More often than not, you just drop it after you get the cease and desist letter, but many have argued and won this type of case. They also typically are lawyers or have a friend that's a lawyer. This way they avoid the tens of thousands of dollars in fees.
I'd explain this to him. Have him sign a waiver saying the logo is for use as a parody/satire. Then whip up the artwork. That should enough to cover yourself.
Gino
Premium Subscriber
We're talking politics, because he's asking about a well known politician who was gonna use this logo and he's modeling his new one after hers which never materialized.
Besides, having someone sign a waiver is crazy. That will not protect you from anything, anywhere for any situation. It just puts off getting blamed. All that means is, you know it to be right or wrong and placing the responsibility onto the other person, who came to you as representing a professional. If you can't do the task, then tell them. Grow some gonads and tell them either you can or you can't do this for whatever particular reason and move on. Otherwise, you're just playing politics in the worst way, by acting like an incompetent fool........ most politicians.
Besides, having someone sign a waiver is crazy. That will not protect you from anything, anywhere for any situation. It just puts off getting blamed. All that means is, you know it to be right or wrong and placing the responsibility onto the other person, who came to you as representing a professional. If you can't do the task, then tell them. Grow some gonads and tell them either you can or you can't do this for whatever particular reason and move on. Otherwise, you're just playing politics in the worst way, by acting like an incompetent fool........ most politicians.
SignProPlus-Chip
New Member
That completely untrue, you can successfully protect a mark of trade even if not filed. A filing being completed or not does not exclude protections. If you use it as your mark of trade, and can prove it, you still maintain many of the protections allowed as if it was registered. Having it registered just makes the process a bit easier and allows for a further reach to be compensated for damages etc...
"In the United States, neither federal nor state registration is required to obtain common law trademark protection, albeit the protection may be limited. In contrast to federal registration, common law trademarks are usually enforceable only within the geographic region or locale where the trademark owner is using it in business. And when an infringement occurs, an unregistered trademark owner sometimes cannot sue to collect damages or recover attorneys fees. In those jurisdictions with limited protection to unregistered trademark owners, a common law trademark owner's remedies may be limited to injunctive relief (a court order for the defendant to cease and desist the infringement).
An unregistered trademark may receive protection under the federal "Lanham Act" (15 USC § 1125), which includes prohibition against commercial misrepresentation of source or origins of goods. Unlike other trademark statutory provisions, a claim under the Lanham Act may permit a party to recover attorneys' fees and costs."
"In the United States, neither federal nor state registration is required to obtain common law trademark protection, albeit the protection may be limited. In contrast to federal registration, common law trademarks are usually enforceable only within the geographic region or locale where the trademark owner is using it in business. And when an infringement occurs, an unregistered trademark owner sometimes cannot sue to collect damages or recover attorneys fees. In those jurisdictions with limited protection to unregistered trademark owners, a common law trademark owner's remedies may be limited to injunctive relief (a court order for the defendant to cease and desist the infringement).
An unregistered trademark may receive protection under the federal "Lanham Act" (15 USC § 1125), which includes prohibition against commercial misrepresentation of source or origins of goods. Unlike other trademark statutory provisions, a claim under the Lanham Act may permit a party to recover attorneys' fees and costs."
Gino
Premium Subscriber
Yes, you are correct about that, but in this case, do the math...... it will never, as in ever, be used again, unless she is a bigger fool that we already know her to be. It was filed and would probably have been used, had she won, but now, she doesn't even do walks in the park. Again, why model yourself after a loser, that's the real question, but if the OP wants to use it, I'd say....... knock yourself out. Besides, who will come after her ?? I'm sure Monica won't.
