PayPal Sues Pandora Over 'Patently Unlawful' Logo (billboard.com)

PayPal has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Pandora, arguing that the company's minimalist logo "dilutes the distinctiveness" of its own branding. "Element by element and in overall impression, the similarities between the logos are striking, obvious, and patently unlawful," the lawsuit alleges. Billboard reports: In October 2016, Pandora announced it was redesigning its logo from a thin, serifed "P" into the chunky, sans serifed "P" that it is today. The color scheme was also changed from midnight blue to a softer shade of blue. By comparison, PayPal's logo, active since 2014, also features a minimalist-looking "P" in a sans serif font and sporting a blue color palette. PayPal's mark actually consists of two overlapping and slanted "Ps," whereas Pandora keeps it to one. Both P's lack a hole. It is because of these similarities that PayPal believes customers of both companies are unable to distinguish the two, and that many are complaining about inadvertently opening Pandora instead of PayPal on their smartphones. The lawsuit includes various screen grabs, primarily from Twitter, of people noting the similarities. PayPal's lawsuit also points out Pandora's current struggles as a brand, saying that since it is primarily an ad-supported service, it "has no obvious path to profitability," especially given "overwhelming competition" from the likes of Spotify and Apple Music. The suit alleges that Pandora purposely "latched itself on to the increasingly popular" PayPal logo look-and-feel as part of its efforts to reverse its fortunes.

Comments

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[bmo]

But trademarks are only valid within the industry the company does business in.

PayPal is a money transfer agent. They don't sell music.

Pandora sells music. They are not a money transfer agent.

Monster Cable cannot go after (legally) Monster Indoor Golf. They did and lost.

--
BMO

Re:WTF

[Capsaicin]

But doesn't a trademark only cover a business area?

That certainly used to be the case.

With the introduction of TRIPS , however, special protection for "well-known marks" applies, under certain circumstances "to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered." That is where such use could be taken to indicate a connection with the owner of the famous mark AND where "the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use." (Article 16(3)). As to what constitutes 'damage' to the trademark holder's interests, the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks on which the TRIPS provision is based suggest this may include "the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark." (Article 4(1)(b)(ii) [Note however that unlike the actual TRIPS agreement, the Joint Recommendation envisaged that this should be a sufficient condition rather than requiring conjunction with any suggestion of connection].

This 'reform' left me anxious as to whether the basal principle of equality before the law is being offended against, however subtly, since the holder of a well-known mark would seem, at first gloss anyway, to receive more favourable treatment vis à vis other trademark holders.

As to whether PayPal either qualifies as a 'well-known' brand; whether the Pandora mark creates confusion as to connection and would damage the interests of PayPal, I offer no opinion.

I don't know of any PayPal music service. Maybe I confused it with Pandora...

Well yes, who knows who owns whom these days. ;)