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.
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.
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.
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.