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.
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.
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?