Soft-drink logos on store signs

[agentsteel53]

The Hershey Creamery insists that its founder is not related to Milton Snavely Hershey.  Go figure!

would there be any legal reason to maintain a polite fiction?  I had thought one's name was allowed to be used as a trademark even if it conflicts with others, so two Hersheys would be okay.  no?

[briantroutman]

Are there any remaining signs using the "new" Coke logo?

I've never seen one with the New Coke logo, which IIRC had a slightly thicker font and and some elements of silver (and later, blue) in addition to the usual red and white.

It was a fairly subtle change from the previous "Coke"  can, which premiered around 1970, to 1985's new "Coke"  can. I believe both of these can designs displayed both "Coke"  and the long-running "Coca-Cola"  script as you rotated the can around. 1985's bolder, slab-serif rendering of "Coke"  wasn't really new, though–it had first appeared on Diet Coke in 1982.

The Hershey Creamery insists that its founder is not related to Milton Snavely Hershey.  Go figure!

would there be any legal reason to maintain a polite fiction?  I had thought one's name was allowed to be used as a trademark even if it conflicts with others, so two Hersheys would be okay.  no?

You'd be surprised. I'm not an intellectual properties attorney, but I do know that it's a complex and sometimes counterintuitive area of law. For example, even if your legal name was McDonald and you had lineage going back to Scotland, the McDonald's Corporation could probably prevent you from operating a local restaurant called "McDonald's" .

The Hershey/Hershey case likely came to a stalemate because both companies date back to 1894–long before either was famous. But in every other regard, though, I think the Hershey Company does have a legitimate grievance with the Hershey Creamery. The creamery is using a confusingly similar logotype, marketing somewhat related products (Nestlé markets both chocolate and ice cream), and capitalizing on customer confusion. The vast majority of people I've asked assume that Hershey ice cream is a product of the Hershey Company.

[SP Cook]

  I had thought one's name was allowed to be used as a trademark even if it conflicts with others, so two Hersheys would be okay.  no?

No.  The legal test is "confusion" by an average customer.  Which comes down to the relative over-lap of the two products and the relative size of the two outfits.  If your name is Campbell, you are certainly OK to be a CPA or own a bakery.  Stew is certainly out.  Some other food?  That is how lawyers make their money. 

We have a case locally.  Lawyer is named Webb.  Bought webblaw dot com or something.  Got a pissy letter from some lawyer in Pittsburgh named Webb.  Our Webb told him to go f*** himself and then sued when the guy wouldn't shut up.  Won.  Got big $$.

My favorite story does not involve last names.  Delta is used by unrelated faucet company, insurance company, and airline.  Delta.com?  First got registered by an ISP in the Mississippi Delta.  He held an auction after beating all three in court.  Airline "won" and got to pay him enough to retire.

[lepidopteran]

Looks like there were New Coke signs.  At least two others are on Flickr, but sharing was restricted on them.
Vintage Coke Sign by BellevilleBloke, on Flickr

[freebrickproductions]

There's one on a sign across the street from my school. It's for some kind of lodging, IIRC.

[1995hoo]

....

My favorite story does not involve last names.  Delta is used by unrelated faucet company, insurance company, and airline.  Delta.com?  First got registered by an ISP in the Mississippi Delta.  He held an auction after beating all three in court.  Airline "won" and got to pay him enough to retire.

The HVAC service company we use is called Delta Service Company. I recall the airline's website was once delta-air.com, which theoretically raises the issue of an HVAC company legitimately beating the airline to that domain name because HVAC is "air"-related.

In a more general sense, the issue you raise as to domain names is known as "cybersquatting" when it's done for malicious reasons. People buy up domain names so they can hold them hostage in the hopes of getting a big payday when the famous trademark's owner wants to use that name. It doesn't always work. There's a federal statute allowing a cause of action in federal court when it's done with bad faith intent to profit off the goodwill of someone else's trademark (of course, the bad faith is one of the issues the parties wind up litigating). The firm where I used to work did a fair amount of cybersquatting work, though I can't consider myself an expert on the topic because I only had limited involvement with that issue. It can be interesting stuff sometimes. The really "good" cybersquatters can be a massive pain in the arse for big corporations.

Then you have the people who register the ".com" version of a ".gov" or ".net" or whatever domain name. Infamously, "whitehouse.com" led to a porn site for many years because the US government hadn't thought to take the prudent step most companies now do of registering for the same name with different suffixes. There are also people who try to profit by using misspelled domain names, or names the people think will be commonly misspelled, to make money. I'm sure back in the 1970s a lot of people probably heard the name "Xerox" pronounced and, if they hadn't seen it written, proceeded to sound it out as "Zerox" or some such. If the World Wide Web had existed back then, somebody could have registered "zerox.com" to try to make money, or alternatively to try to smear Xerox. It's the negative sites that try to attack a company that sometimes cause bigger headaches than the people who simply register the domain names in an attempt to profit.

....

For the record, the 7up product Like Cola was introduced in 1982.  These are quite rare.
Like Cola? (2) by found_drama, on Flickr

I remember that soda, though I hadn't thought of the name in years. Can't say I'd ever seen a sign like that one, though.

[hbelkins]

You'd be surprised. I'm not an intellectual properties attorney, but I do know that it's a complex and sometimes counterintuitive area of law. For example, even if your legal name was McDonald and you had lineage going back to Scotland, the McDonald's Corporation could probably prevent you from operating a local restaurant called "McDonald's" .

The Hershey/Hershey case likely came to a stalemate because both companies date back to 1894–long before either was famous. But in every other regard, though, I think the Hershey Company does have a legitimate grievance with the Hershey Creamery. The creamery is using a confusingly similar logotype, marketing somewhat related products (Nestlé markets both chocolate and ice cream), and capitalizing on customer confusion. The vast majority of people I've asked assume that Hershey ice cream is a product of the Hershey Company.

Also in Pennsylvania: Snyder's of Hanover and Snyder's of Berlin. One of them carries a disclaimer on its products that it's not associated with the other.

We have a case locally.  Lawyer is named Webb.  Bought webblaw dot com or something.  Got a pissy letter from some lawyer in Pittsburgh named Webb.  Our Webb told him to go f*** himself and then sued when the guy wouldn't shut up.  Won.  Got big $$.

Why would a lawyer in Pittsburgh be complaining about a lawyer in West Virginia? Overlapping media markets somewhere along I-79 or something?

[The Nature Boy]

Wasn't there a case between Burger King and a local restaurant in central IL that carried the same name?

I believe it prevented BK from opening a restaurant within 40 miles or so of that town.

[1995hoo]

Wasn't there a case between Burger King and a local restaurant in central IL that carried the same name?

I believe it prevented BK from opening a restaurant within 40 miles or so of that town.

There was. There's also a pizza restaurant chain in parts Canada called "Pizza Pizza" (I don't remember whether it's punctuated) who were able to prevent Little Caesars from using their well-known "Pizza! Pizza!" slogan in the areas where the other chain does business. This sort of thing isn't as uncommon as people might think. I recall Waffle House were unable to use their name in certain areas because of another chain already established there (I think maybe Indiana, though I don't recall for sure).

[6a]

I recall Waffle House were unable to use their name in certain areas because of another chain already established there (I think maybe Indiana, though I don't recall for sure).

That is correct - Waffle House in Indiana was called Waffle & Steak. I think that's since changed however.

[bugo]

How is trying to make money "malicious"?  There is nothing inherently wrong with buying a domain with the intent of making profit.

[lepidopteran]

The retail chain Big Lots used to be known as "Odd Lots" in some parts of Ohio.  I think this was because there was another similar chain with a buyout/closeout business model called Odd Lots outside of Ohio, or vice-versa.  But now they're called Big Lots throughout the chain.

Of course, businesses or with different regional names can be the subject of a whole 'nother thread.  (Esso/Enco/Humble for example)  Or even regional brand names (Hellman's/Best Foods mayonnaise, Hostess Ding-Dongs/King Dons/Big Wheels).

[Pete from Boston]

As I mentioned in another thread, a fine little local steakhouse in Montvale, NJ, called itself "McDonald's" dating to the 40s or so, irritating the powerless global megafattener since they were technically the new kid on the block.  Sadly, McDonald's the small closed on 1996, and McDonald's the large rolls on.