Regarding Mosher’s question: This is not a copyright issue. Under US law, names cannot receive copyright protection. Not just names, but words and phrases, titles, slogans, familiar symbols and designs—none of these qualify for copyright. Most logos don't qualify for copyright protection—only if they meet certain requirements do they qualify.
But copyright protection is usually not really an issue for businesses anyway. Trademark protection, on the other hand, is not nearly so narrow. It’s trademark law that protects things like logos and product names. It's true, as Vector Doctor said, common terms do not generally qualify for trademark protection—like pizza or cupcake. But the name Pizza Hut is protected. Cupcake Mary could have trademark protection, too. It may not show up in a search of the USPAT data base, but it could be registered at a state level. Each state has its own trademark laws. Beyond that are also laws regarding unfair competition that are based in part on common law. A trademark search is something that many companies do before they invest heavily in a name or logo. There are services, and many lawyers, that do trademark searches.
Many things can be protected by trademark: The most popular marks are words, like Photoshop, WordPerfect, Quicken. Letters, initials, can be protected, such as CNN and ESPN. Numbers: 20/20 (TV show) or U2 (the band). Domain names, like amazon.com. Symbols, such as the Chevy bow tie and the five-sided star of Chrysler. The McDonald’s arches are protected. Some protected trademarks are very simple: the Nike swoosh, the Bass Ale red triangle. A photograph can be the basis for a protected trademark, though it’s not common. The Michael Jordan ‘jump man’ silhouette owned by Nike is an example.
Colors can be protected: T-Mobile and Owens Corning each have protection for two different shades of pink. Sounds can have trademark protection, like the NBC chime. Even scents. There is almost no limit to what can be protected by trademark.
Copyright
Copyright and trademark serve different purposes. Copyright law gives the original creator of a work a monopoly over its use during his or her lifetime (plus 70 years). This way only a photographer has the right, for example, to print T-shirts that have a photo he created. If you design a font, only you have the right to make copies of the file. Only the original writer has the right to make a stage adaptation of his novel.
A musician can own copyright protection for both lyrics and music, and a further copyright for a unique arrangement (I don't really know how that works). Songwriters and musicians get royalty payments from organizations like BMI and ASCAP that do the collecting for them. When a bar pays their royalty fees every month, a small percentage of that makes its way back to the musicians that own the songs. My friend Karen is a musician/songwriter here in Kansas City. She plays at various venues and she gets a little royalty check every month for all the times her music is played. Who plays her songs? Mostly she does. So she get paid for gigs AND royalties for playing her own music. It's a small check for the royalties, but she's glad to get it.
Trademark
Trademark protection serves a different purpose. It is mainly to prevent confusion in the marketplace. A trademark is intended to differentiate the goods or services of one company from another. If two businesses are trying to attract the same consumers, each will try to develop a loyal following using trademarks, logos and other things that make up branding. If a company is very successful at this, its logos and trademarks can become valuable assets. Some trademarks are worth billions of dollars (the Coca-Cola logo). So it’s in the best interests of a company to work hard at protecting its trademarks from infringement.
This makes sense, because if a company has worked hard to develop a valuable trademark, others don’t have the right to profit from the mark—because they didn’t do the work.
Of course, as with so many things, the law favors those with money. Big companies can afford to go after small infringers. But for the average small business the cost of litigating against someone bigger is way too high.
Brad
