Peter Southwood, 04/06/2013 11:31:
> I am not an expert on copyright of logos, which is why I ask the question.
> Howevr, I would have thought that a logo is described by the image, not
> by words.
The premise is wrong; it's rather the opposite. (Personally I've only
registered one trademark, but I encourage you to read the how-tos and
forms to do so.)
> Images are recognised differently to words.
> If you put the two logos in question together they are not easy to
> confuse, except possibly that they use the same set of colors. What are
> the criteria for infringement claim? use of the same set of colours? a
> similar circular overall shape? Curved lines forming pointy wedge
> shapes? How does one prove difference? subjective? by testing on
> unbiased viewers? More expensive lawyers? Bribing the judge? I don't
> know, so I ask.
> If we have to choose a new logo it would help to know what might be
> acceptable, as I think I have made it clear that I don't consider the
> existing logo easily confused with the WTO logo, and I think they are
> just pushing their luck to get precedent on a whole range of
> possibilities that might be confused by a shortsighted person in a dark
> room on drugs.
> WTF, I no longer expect a useful relevant answer.
For practical purposes, I suggest you to adopt this definition: two
trademarks are too similar if a trademark owner considers the similarity
worth fighting legally.
Similarly, going into details of how our logo could be defended is
tricky and needs experts, so your question assumes that our logo is
worth defending. That's why you got replies on your premise rather than
to your question... the answer is, "they're similar because it would be
too hard to prove otherwise and it's not worth it". Ok?
Nemo
.jpg){kind=link}
