She’s not saying they can’t use the word “Swift”. She is objecting to the specific logo they have chosen. It looks remarkably similar to her signature, which is trademarked. Both are shown in the article.
I don’t care one way or another about Taylor Swift except that she has too much money. I think she is right in this case. The logo really could create brand confusion because of the similarity between their proposed logo and her signature.
IMO once you look past the fact that they are both cursive and elegant, they are many differences. Taylor Swift’s signature has some very distinctive features, and none of them can be found in the brand’s logo, which is in a much more generic cursive style.
But I suppose the claim isn’t outlandish either, just seems very petty and either insecure or greedy.
Other than cursive they are nothing alike. A dedicated font person on TM would tear this apart of anyone had the nuts to actually take on her team.
Source: USPTO lawyer sitting in bed half naked.
They’re definitely pretty similar. And the thing about trademarks is that you need to defend them or lose them. Even if this one is fine, letting it go means you have less chance of stopping “Swift Music”, for example.
Well, Swift has been a huge phenomenon for over a decade, so you’d expect profit-maximising corporations to skate as close to riding her coattails as they can get away with. Sort of how McDonalds allegedly made Ronald McDonald look subtly more like Michael Jackson in the 80s.
Why care about trademarks or protecting corporate identity?
There are no good billionaires.
Wait until a bread costs a million.
So we can eat the billionaires?
I’m not particularly interested in human meat, but who am I to stop you?
Really weighing in on the important issues, huh?
I don’t see the similarities except in the S, but they are definitely capitalising on her name and brand. The S looking kinda similar is a stretch at best and the best argument for the logo looking similar. They are absolutely trying to trade on her name, which is what trademark is about. You can trade on your own name (in some cases — unless a company has already used it and established it) or you can trade on a name you made up, but you can’t trade on someone else’s name. Whether or not you like her or her music is beside the point because that’s not what it’s about.
they are definitely capitalising on her name and brand
How? By just using the word “swift”? I don’t think copyright should cover something that generic, we’ll end up licensing off the whole language.
It’s her name and she trades on it. They want to trade on her name without compensating her or giving her review of the product (potentially damaging her brand). Moreover, they’re implying she endorses them while she has done no such thing. How is this hard to grasp?
As far as licensing actual words (since you want to separate “swift”, the word that means quick and agile, from “Taylor Swift,” the pop icon the brand is trying to monetise), consider Word, Excel, and Windows having been trademarked by Microsoft for decades. There are many others. Of course, you can use Excel, but you can’t use it in spreadsheets. So while the “Swift Home” company isn’t making music, the fact that they’re using her name and arguably, the way she distinctly writes the S (which I don’t agree with) is what she’s taking issue with.
Absolute cunt. Not in the Aussie good way.
It’s kinda shitty behavior, but one for profit entity screwing with another for profit entity over bullshit reasons doesn’t even crack the top ten in terms of shitty behavior I saw in headlines scrolling my way here (source: lives under current US government)
Kill swift
