Comments on: Q gotta be kidding http://www.thenameinspector.com/q-gotta-be-kidding/ Tells you what makes names tick. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:45:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Marc Naimark http://www.thenameinspector.com/q-gotta-be-kidding/#comment-15694 Marc Naimark Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:25:38 +0000 http://www.thenameinspector.com/q-gotta-be-kidding/#comment-15694 There was a noted case recently in France regarding the use of a letter. An article can be found here (bottom of page 2): http://20minutes.s3.amazonaws.com/20070920_PAR.pdf Basically a café owner was found guilty of "counterfeiting a brand" and fined 13,000 euros. His café was named "Café K", after his own name Karim Kaci, and he had registered the brand name three years earlier. A cinema chain, MK2, sued, because they have their own "café K" (as far as I understand, this specific brand is not registered... just the MK2). The court judged (!) that any use of the letter K by the café owner was illegal. No possibility of using the name "café Ka", or even "café Kaci", his own name. The result is that he's renamed the place, which had a strong brand recognition as a music venue, the "café I", after his wife, Isabelle. There was a noted case recently in France regarding the use of a letter.
An article can be found here (bottom of page 2):
http://20minutes.s3.amazonaws.com/20070920_PAR.pdf

Basically a café owner was found guilty of “counterfeiting a brand” and fined 13,000 euros.

His café was named “Café K”, after his own name Karim Kaci, and he had registered the brand name three years earlier.

A cinema chain, MK2, sued, because they have their own “café K” (as far as I understand, this specific brand is not registered… just the MK2).

The court judged (!) that any use of the letter K by the café owner was illegal. No possibility of using the name “café Ka”, or even “café Kaci”, his own name.

The result is that he’s renamed the place, which had a strong brand recognition as a music venue, the “café I”, after his wife, Isabelle.

]]> By: Danny Bronski http://www.thenameinspector.com/q-gotta-be-kidding/#comment-15403 Danny Bronski Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:46:13 +0000 http://www.thenameinspector.com/q-gotta-be-kidding/#comment-15403 In the case of the fetish O magazine, the name is actually somewhat cleverly alliterative ("Story of O"), although in Oprah's case, there is clearly a laughable dose of "such hubris, such naivete" involved. That legal decision was a bad one, my gut tells me. I don't think Lexeme had anything to worry about from a legal perspective, but the good news there is in the past few years, overstaking one's claim to the phonetosphere via trademark infringement letters had led to more than one big company getting blasted in the blogosphere. Perhaps the only reason the Q to the V to the C are still in business is that their main competitor chose the awe inspiring "Home Shopping Network". Few naming sins worse than trying to forcefeed a consumer an acronym. In the case of the fetish O magazine, the name is actually somewhat cleverly alliterative (”Story of O”), although in Oprah’s case, there is clearly a laughable dose of “such hubris, such naivete” involved. That legal decision was a bad one, my gut tells me.

I don’t think Lexeme had anything to worry about from a legal perspective, but the good news there is in the past few years, overstaking one’s claim to the phonetosphere via trademark infringement letters had led to more than one big company getting blasted in the blogosphere.

Perhaps the only reason the Q to the V to the C are still in business is that their main competitor chose the awe inspiring “Home Shopping Network”. Few naming sins worse than trying to forcefeed a consumer an acronym.

]]>