get a load of this: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/mlb-battling-finance-website-over-trademark-of-the-letter--w-070712633.html Basically the MLB has issues with a financial company for using W as their logo. I loved what the attorney for the finance company said: "They don't own the letter "W".
Actually, you are incorrect. They are not asking the financial company to change their logo. They are opposing the financial company's application for a trademark to protect their "W"-shaped logo. MLB is not claiming "ownership" of the letter itself -- that would be absurd. They claim that there the financial company's logo could create confusion in the markeplace. Frankly, I find the MLB claim to be weak, but it's certainly not ridiculous. If the financial company had made their logo an apple with a bite mark, you can be sure that Apple would have oppose their trademark application. The issue here is with the design, not the letter in the abstract.
But it is GREEN and White, and NOBODY would confuse it with the two ways the MLB is claiming. Nationals Logo: https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0LEVvnMAOFU_0AAeL8nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0N25ndmVnBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwNF8x?p=washington+nationals+logo&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DWashington%2BNationals%2BLogo%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&w=1600&h=1600&imgurl=www.ranklogos.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2FWashington-Nationals.jpg&size=97KB&name=Washington-Nationals.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ranklogos.com%2Flogos%2Fsports-logos%2Fbaseball%2F&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ranklogos.com%2Flogos%2Fsports-logos%2Fbaseball%2F&type=&no=1&tt=120&oid=abdb530730d8e7283b7a1cd51b425937&tit=Washington+Nationals&sigr=11lbnm5n5&sigi=125vk890o&sign=10ohafcbk&sigt=103vg5ole&sigb=1357cbu3q&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 The "W" used in Wrigley Field. https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0LEVvYVAeFUKj0ANoYnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0N25ndmVnBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwNF8x?p=wrigley+field+logo&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DWrigley%2BField%2Blogo%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&w=592&h=469&imgurl=mlb.mlb.com%2Fchc%2Fimages%2Ffan_forum%2Fy2013%2F592x469_entry3.jpg&size=52KB&name=592x469_entry3.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchicago.cubs.mlb.com%2Fchc%2Ffan_forum%2Flogocontest.jsp&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchicago.cubs.mlb.com%2Fchc%2Ffan_forum%2Flogocontest.jsp&type=&no=2&tt=119&oid=21e81445d51c24cb02af40d59dea98a8&tit=Below+is+an+advertisement.&sigr=11p0b0u3f&sigi=11psbth9v&sign=10i7qtjpl&sigt=103d1h5lg&sigb=12uctpt2v&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 So, I don't see my self as incorrect at all. These "W"s are entirely dissimilar. Like the attorney for the insurance company said, the MLB is overreaching. What is next? Someone trademarking "This sick beat"?...... oh wait.......
You've pointed out exactly why I said that the MLB claim was weak. My original points were that: 1) MLB is not claiming ownership of the letter W 2) Their trademark claim may be weak, but not ridiculous. Back to my Apple example: you could make your bitten-apple logo purple with an orange backgound -- Apple would still go after you for trademark infringement. BTW, the financial company's lawyer's principal defense seems to be that MLB has no standing to oppose a trademark that could infringe on a team's trademark. Considering that MLB already manages team trademarks for licensing purposes, I think they are well within their rights to express their opposition. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just someone who deals with intellectual property every day.
Another non-lawyer jumping in - Part of the problem is that trademarks, copyright, and other properties like this have to be "vigorously" defended to my understanding. Otherwise, if you let it slide and it does become an issue later on - the courts will tell you "tough - you should have defended it, but you did not, so it must not be that big a deal for you." I remember someone, or some company either did a copyright or trademark of the emoji and then tried to claim rights to it - it did no go anywhere, so even though people or companies claim things, it does not mean they can collect damages, or royalties. I think much if not most of the US legal system is overly complicated and has lawyers in mind to keep them well employed and the copyrights, trademarks, and intellectual property is some of the worst offenders out there for needless and unnecessary lawsuits - but that is what is required here in the US. I suspect things are better in other parts of the world - but maybe not...
You are right about trademarks -- owners need to defend them whenever there is a perceived threat, real or not. Copyrights, however, don't need to be defended to remain valid. In fact, you can legally give someone a pass for infringing on your copyright (say, with a piece of fan art) and go after someone else for exactly the same offense.
