71–76 of 76 posts
"a multi-billion dollar health insurance company threatened to take us to court for trademark infringement"
to
"a multi-billion dollar health insurance company threatened to oppose our trademark application"
Was that because of careful consideration and consulting or again because of said health insurance company?
Childish. Oh well, sounds like money will be coming in, and free advertising, so mission success, right?
I give credit to Watsi for its response, though. This is a cool and creative way to deal with a forced change in brand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed the same company as you. However, I fall on the other side of the analysis, that Watsi is 1. not interfering with any trademarks registered by BCBS (all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark); and 2. otherwise not causing any confusion in the markplace (for exam…
BCBS isn't a company. It's an association of a few dozen regional companies, some of which have their own word marks - Empire BCBS in New York is a separate company from CareFirst BCBS in Maryland, and so on. In some areas, like California, the local Blue Cross never merged with the local Blue Shield and they remain separate. There are a lot of different possible trademark holders to check. I did some TESS digging of…
"The association owns and manages the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Trademarks." http://www.bcbs.com/about-the-association/ Some of the "independent" companies comprising the Association are the "registered owner" of marks but obviously that is only through a license with the Association, and they are not actual owners they are licensees.
>serial number 72450146
As I acknowledged in my comment there may have been such a mark and admitted to another comment I have previously been unable to find a specific mark with TESS. That said the design of the mark you found: 1. is the cross with the "Silhouettes of men" design in the middle, and 2. they specifically avoided identifying the color of the cross(i.e. they could have specifically identified blue to receive very specific and greater protection as to blue crosses, instead they receive a more general protection for a cross with a man in any color). Additionally, the category of the mark you identified is category 36 or in other words "insurance", therefore, it is going to be difficult to enforce the mark against a non-insurance company even if they are involved with medical services in one way or another (again I concede there may be other and more appropriate marks registered).
> I'd say there's enough of a chance of confusion
Although the legal standard is "likelihood of confusion", there still needs to be a showing of actual confusion in the market place (i.e. did a reasonable person actually donate to Watsi thinking it was BCBS, or can BCBS produce surveys of consumers showing they are actually confused?). It is possible, but I do not think so. Again I feel Watsi saw their effort/money better spent on their mission not on needless litigation, and I think they made the right choice, but as their counsel I would have said they would likely prevail, that said it is possible their counsel would not agree with me just the same as you.