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

Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

When will we sue Mecca for the thousands killed on 9/11 and the thousands more killed since then?

Islam is a garbage religion for shitty people.

If Catholics were setting off suicide bombs, how long would it take before every Catholic church was empty?

Why does anybody go to a Mosque, knowing the pure evil that Islam represents?

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but every religion has had people willing to kill for it. Have you looked at history? In fact, the Catholic church has committed horrific crimes against people. Their history is one paved with blood. What about the church in more recent times covering up priests molesting kids? Does the fact that people are still Catholic mean they support molesting kids? I would hope not. Just like how if someone is Muslim it doesn't mean they support acts of violence carried out in the name of their religion.

You're always going to find someone who's willing to die for their god. it's a story as old as time.

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

but no one expected the Spanish Inquisition...

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

>" If Catholics were setting off suicide bombs, how long would it take before every Catholic church was empty?"

Irish Republican Army - look it up.

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

That argument is bullshit. Every other religion grew the fuck up centuries ago and condemns atrocities committed by maniacs who commit evil in the name of their god.

1400 years of bestiality, pedophilia, rape, slavery, murder, necrophilia and general destruction of pretty much everything, including themselves, and the filthy demonic moslem hordes are still at it with vigor, spreading further and further into the west. It's pure fucking Satanism. To this very day, they proudly broadcast their crimes against humanity online, moslem viewers watching the live streams call for MORE, BIGGER, MORE BRUTAL attacks, they go out of their way to claim responsibility when the progressive media tries to downplay that it was them (not revealing arabic names, reporting that assailants shout "God is great" without mentioning it was said in arabic), and they have successfully cucked every single libtard everywhere into believing that it's acceptable because it's "part of their culture". ISIS members are everywhere (literally wearing the ISIS flag as a cape) because of apologists like you. You are useful idiots. Here's a tip, (and the blade behind it) just because you side with them, doesn't mean they will spare you.

After they execute you faggots, the rest of us will deal with them.

CAPTCHA: funeral

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

IRA fought for independence. These guys fight for conquest. There is a difference.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

So did the Catholic American government trying to fuck up their political structure by installing Bin Laden, then again multiple times after 9/11.

Considering the US (and others, to be fair) sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong - just because it wasn't pro democracy... I'm surprised there hasn't been an organized military response by half the planet

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

When's the last time they set off a bomb?
How many women and children have they kidnapped and raped?
How far, globally, has their reach of terror extended?
And above all, was it about really about religion or just being and independent republic?

Hmmm...

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because history from centuries ago affects me *today*. ???

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to turn Slashdot into kuro5hin

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do Americans always need some group to blame for their troubles? It's either the blacks, the Mexicans, the Jews, or the Muslims causing all your troubles. It used to be the Irish and the Italians.
Stop blaming everybody else and get your own act together.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on... The US government isn't Catholic.

The president being Catholic was a minor scandal when JFK was elected. The US is thoroughly Protestant.

And besides that, the US government isn't Protestant either. There is specifically a separation of church and state.

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were smart, you'd realise that the shit falling out of your mouth is exactly what islamic terrorists want to achieve. You're letting them lead you like cattle down a chute. What a dopey fuck you are.

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Maritz]

The IRA was about getting the British out of Ireland. It had fuck all to do with religion other than it correlated with the politics on this occasion.

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Maritz]

Don't know why you're modded down because you're correct.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your alt-facts to your alt-place where it belongs.

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Richard_at_work]

The IRA was anti-British, but it was also heavily involved in the Roman Catholic-Protestant troubles in Northern Ireland - it killed a lot of people for simply being a member of the wrong branch of the Catholic Church (what people refer to as the Catholic Church in common usage is actually Roman Catholic - pretty much every Protestant church considers itself Catholic, just not Roman Catholic).

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[TheRaven64]

The grandparent is referring to the Official IRA, which is commonly referred to simply as the IRA as it has had the greatest claim to the name since 1969. During the period the OIRA was active, The Republic of Ireland was (and remains) an independent Catholic country. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but has a majority Protestant population who do not wish to become part of the Republic of Ireland. Attempting to incorporate Northern Ireland into The Republic of Ireland against the wishes of the majority of the population of Northern Ireland sounds like conquest to me.

During the period that the OIRA was active, they killed more people in the UK than Islamic terrorists have done in total. They did not cause Catholic churches to empty and their supporters toured America (particularly New York) raising funds to buy weapons. The US Government refused to block this. It only ended when, for some reason, around 2001 it became unfashionable to fund terrorists.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[volodymyrbiryuk]

There is specifically a separation of church and state.

Yeah this is why MP keeps telling us that he is "...a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican—in that order"

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because no other country or culture has ever scapegoated external entities. Idiot.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[DontBeAMoran]

There is specifically a separation of church and state.

I guess that explains why it's written "In God we trust" on all your coins and bills.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Wycliffe]

There is specifically a separation of church and state.

Yeah this is why MP keeps telling us that he is "...a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican—in that order"

Mike Pence is christian but that's the point of separation of church and state. He can be christian all he wants, he can even vote for laws favored by christians but he still can't explicitly pass a law for or against a religion. That's the reason Trump's muslim ban was overturned. Because Trump had specifically stated he was going to target muslims, it was found unconstitutional. Separation of church and state doesn't mean you can't be religious, it means there shouldn't be any laws about religion. We violate this a little when we do stuff like banning prayer in school but for the most part the USA does a pretty good job of keeping religion and politics separate.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[bluefoxlucid]

There is a Constitutional law which says Congress shall make no law establishing a State religion or infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That means Congress cannot make laws declaring a religion of the United States, or banning a religion, or whatnot. Congress also can't give any regulatory body the power to enforce any such thing.

Congress also cannot produce a legal basis for removing bibles, torah, qu'ran, or the Tao from the curriculum of public schools. Congress can neither prevent nor produce a legal basis to order a Federal courthouse to adorn itself with religious displays. Congress cannot produce any sort of law allowing a legal gag of the practice of religion by state or Federal legislatures, either, meaning that the Senate can vote for its proceedings to open with prayer, and any Senator may abstain from said prayer without legal repercussion.

The "Separation of Church and State" doesn't exist. The uneducated make an argument that, somewhere, there's a line in the Constitution declaring that the Government must be 100% secular, agnostic of all religion, and neutral in all aspects of its behavior. This has been used to found arguments against police departments which place crosses at sites of roadside deaths, even though you can't make any such legal argument against the practice even via the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment (applying the 14th would make it illegal for the State to stop the police department from doing any such thing).

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[jae471]

I think you mean the Provisional IRA, not official IRA.

1922 Original IRA - 1969 Provisional IRA - (1994 Continuity IRA, 1997 Real IRA)

Basically, one generation ages, settles, and makes peace, and the next cries Betrayal! and takes up arms. And I say that as someone generally sympathetic to the Republican cause.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought the "Establishment clause" meant that any laws passed had to be religiously neutral. not favoring any one branch of religion.

Re:Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

because blaming others has been going on ever since the first tribe of humans met another tribe.

Re: Sue Islam for killing innocents.

[Anonymous Coward]

...says the person blaming Americans

WTF

[Patent Lover]

One's a P, the other is two P's. Likelihood of confusion? I think PayPal's pissed that they suck and Pandora doesn't.

Re:WTF

[maglor_83]

They're pretty similar (at least the darker version they have on their homepage, not so much the lighter version). But doesn't a trademark only cover a business area? I don't know of any PayPal music service. Maybe I confused it with Pandora...

Re:WTF

[Your.Master]

I don't think that's quite fair.

In text:

PayPal has two capital Ps, on slant, overlapping with one slightly further down and to the right. The P's font is most notable for lacking the "hole" in the letter. Each P is a distinct shade of blue, plus a third shade of blue for the overlap.

Pandora has a single capital P, upright. It is a particular shade of blue. The font's most noticeable feature is the lack of a hole in the P.

There's a lot more similarities than it being the letter P. To be fair, there are also more differences than it being 1 vs. 2 Ps, although the other ones are fairly subtle -- the lack of slant, the particular shade of blue (Pandora's is close to one of PayPal's), the way PayPal's P's have no corners while Pandora's do, and way Pandora's "stem" is noticeably short.

Here's my lay assessment which is definitely not informed by actual trademark law, just me trying to apply common sense to the idea behind trademarks:

- I do think I could be confused by these marks if I wasn't specifically looking at them.
- I really doubt this was intentional. This looks like a mistake that could happen innocently.
- I think PayPal's mark has enough elements to be distinctive, clearly. Pandora's would be stretching it a bit even if PayPal was not already there, although stylized single-letter marks are not a new phenomenon.
- I'm not sure I would feel the same way if Pandora were first and PayPal the supposed infringer, which is an interesting asymmetry that I'm not sure can actually hold up in any court of law. The thing is that PayPal's mark has strictly more elements to distinguish it. Pandora looks like part of the PayPal mark taken out of context.

I use neither of these services regularly, but have used both in the past. No particular loyalties.

Re:WTF

[CaptainDork]

The first one looks like the pussy grabber's pee pee.

Re:WTF

[Patent Lover]

So you've seen it? Is it orange? I'm pretty sure Melania had the lights off that one time.

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. ;)

Re: WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademarks should cover a given "trade". Unless Pandora has started offering billing services. PayPal is being a bully here.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put, if you don't want confusion, just make your logo a stupidly simple character. Both logos are pretty forgettable anyway.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put:

*Fuck* PayPal. They suck.

FTFY. ;)

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at it, I think I'd be more likely to confuse Pandora's 'P' for the Internet Explorer 'e'.

Re:WTF

[CaptainDork]

So you've seen it?

Yes, I've seen it.

Re: WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Pandora's logo only has one fillet and no rounded corners and is only one P and the leg is shorter and the color is different and it's not slanted and the um, large round part is shaped differently, both companies are also completely different industries and don't compete in any way shape or for. Need I go on, on the differences? The similarity ends with both logos using the letter P. Maybe Seasame Street should sue both of them.

Re:WTF

[David_Hart]

I don't think that's quite fair.

In text:

PayPal has two capital Ps, on slant, overlapping with one slightly further down and to the right. The P's font is most notable for lacking the "hole" in the letter. Each P is a distinct shade of blue, plus a third shade of blue for the overlap.

Pandora has a single capital P, upright. It is a particular shade of blue. The font's most noticeable feature is the lack of a hole in the P.

There's a lot more similarities than it being the letter P. To be fair, there are also more differences than it being 1 vs. 2 Ps, although the other ones are fairly subtle -- the lack of slant, the particular shade of blue (Pandora's is close to one of PayPal's), the way PayPal's P's have no corners while Pandora's do, and way Pandora's "stem" is noticeably short.

Here's my lay assessment which is definitely not informed by actual trademark law, just me trying to apply common sense to the idea behind trademarks:

- I do think I could be confused by these marks if I wasn't specifically looking at them.
- I really doubt this was intentional. This looks like a mistake that could happen innocently.
- I think PayPal's mark has enough elements to be distinctive, clearly. Pandora's would be stretching it a bit even if PayPal was not already there, although stylized single-letter marks are not a new phenomenon.
- I'm not sure I would feel the same way if Pandora were first and PayPal the supposed infringer, which is an interesting asymmetry that I'm not sure can actually hold up in any court of law. The thing is that PayPal's mark has strictly more elements to distinguish it. Pandora looks like part of the PayPal mark taken out of context.

I use neither of these services regularly, but have used both in the past. No particular loyalties.

I think that they look similar enough to be confusing given the similar letter style and colors. My thought is that Pandora just needs to change the color of their logo to some other color than blue. That would be enough for me to distinguish between the two.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

one or two is a significant difference. PayPal should be more concerned about PlannedParenthood logo similaritites

Re:WTF

[Wizardess]

Basically I find PayPal's estimation of my intelligence and that of all their other customers rather depressing. I rather doubt we're a collection of dunces that we'd mistake the two. On the other hand the similarity could lead to a misapprehension regarding the (lack of) relationship between the two. On the gripping hand, resorting to lawfare generally precedes the decline of all the other company products and services. I hope PayPal is an exception to this.

{^_^}

Re:WTF

[meerling]

That's what you get for being dumb enough to bet your money on a single letter based trademark (even if one of them is repeating the letter in what looks like a shadow instead of a separate letter.)

Re:WTF

[ixidor]

lets see, both have short names Both start with letter "P" both use generic-blue both have a minimalist icon design its like the difference between a galaxy and an iphone. both are rectangular with a largeish display screen i mean comon, how different can they be and both be minimalist, blue and fit in the icon space

Re: WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it was just enough that you can use Paypal to pay for Pandora, or at least that is what google tells me never used either of them myself.

Re: WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if because of this Pandora dropped Paypal as a way to pay how many complaints there would be.

Re:WTF

[AmiMoJo]

It appears that PayPal adopted this "double P" logo in 2014. Pandora adopted their P logo in the last few years too.

Re:WTF

[parkinglot777]

I completely agreed on your identification of differences of those 2 logos. Though, I would point out how visual priority comes into play.

Most people who aren't color blind would quickly look and remember color much better than shape. In this case, the color of both logos are too awfully close even though Pandora has 1 P and Paypal has 2 Ps (no pun intended). In a long run, Paypal logo could be diluted to Pandora. I think that's the main issue that Paypal should use again Pandora new logo.

Re:WTF

[jenningsthecat]

... resorting to lawfare generally precedes the decline of all the other company products and services. I hope PayPal is an exception to this.

Personally, I hope PayPal is an exemplar of this. I would very much like to see them go down in flames and be replaced by something less evil and assholish.

Re:WTF

[Wycliffe]

I think that they look similar enough to be confusing given the similar letter style and colors. My thought is that Pandora just needs to change the color of their logo to some other color than blue. That would be enough for me to distinguish between the two.

Paypal's Logo is an actual distinguishable logo. Pandora's is a single letter without a hole. Changing the color isn't going to fix it. If you want a logo, you need to make it unique enough to be distinct. Lots of companies like Google and Facebook use a single letter but they also do something to make it truly unique. There is nothing unique about Pandora's current or previous letter P. I'm undecided whether Paypal has any grounds but I don't think Pandora should be able to trademark a blue letter.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I was ready to disagree when I saw the headline - probably another frivolous lawsuit - then I saw the logos. They are ridiculously similar.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no eye for detail. They are not even remotely close other than using the letter P.

PayPal is on the losing end of this battle and it's going to cost them a shit ton of money.

Re: WTF

[bobmajdakjr]

i am more worried that by using words with that letter in them that i am likely to get sued for defamation or someshit now. my comment was going to be witty with lots of words with the missing letter but it turns out i didnt need it even once for any of this.

Re: WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I try to avoid using paypal for payment on anything.

Re:WTF

[Patent Lover]

Holy shit, too funny. Thanks for that.

Re:WTF

[lsatenstein]

One's a P, the other is two P's. Likelihood of confusion?

I think PayPal's pissed that they suck and Pandora doesn't.

If the two companies are not in the same business, then there is no chance of loss of business for either side. I would just have the Single P logo have a line beneath the P to indicated incorproated or "since 19xx"

What?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I take it there's a PayPal app that people actually use?

(Switches over to the App Store to look)

Okay, I guess they're worried about the double-vision demographic?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a paypal app for use with the "paypal here" credit card reader attachments.

They have one that connects to the headphone jack and lets you swipe magstripe cards, and another that uses bluetooth for chipped cards.
The app lets you put in charge amounts or access your store front / shopping card thing, lets the customer do their card part, and sign on screen.

It's actually pretty neat as far as the tech goes.

That said, those logos do look pretty similar if sized down to icon size.
But it would be pretty obvious a second after tapping it if you opened the wrong one on accident...

Penis

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk must be squeezing PP dry to maintain his life style.

Re: Penis

[Anonymous Coward]

Squeezing PP? Well, that company was his golden shower of wealth. His friends said, "you're in luck!"

When he was looking for investors, he asked, " You're in? Yes, you're in!"

Gays

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a couple of flamers would argue about the shape of the "P." I suggest that instead of tying up our American Legal System, we have both parties fight to the death by slapping. The first flamer to break all five fingernails LOSES.

Toss Both

[Luthair]

How is it reasonable that anyone can own a blue P in a bland font.

Re: Toss Both

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. "Both P's lack a hole" doesn't mean they aren't still P's.

Re: Toss Both

[infolation]

News for typography nerds:

The P doesn't 'lack a hole', it has a 'filled counter'.

Re: Toss Both

[Maritz]

I think I've had my fill of typography nerds for today after skimming the comic sans article comments...

Re: Toss Both

[advocate_one]

arghhhh!!! my eyes... my eyes...

that was terrifying...

Re:Toss Both

[thegarbz]

How is it reasonable that anyone can own a blue P in a bland font.

Why does it need to be a P?

To quote:

and the color TIFFANY BLUE are trademarks of Tiffany (NJ) LLC

Can you feel the love?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Because everyone loves PayPal.

Re:Can you feel the love?

[Maritz]

Oh the PayPal logo is all the rage with the kids. Their lawyers can explain it all to you.

Re:Can you feel the love?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Because everyone loves PayPal.

Well, isn't that precisely why Pandora is doing it? They obviously wanted that lawsuit, considering how they rejected Paypal's forewarning, and how Paypal would obviously sue, and most certainly win. They wanted some of that sweet sweet David and Goliath PR... Pretty lamentable...

I can see the similarity

[Kryptonut]

Sure, they're not identical, but I can see how someone not in the know could be confused by it. Pandora have been around long enough to be well aware of what the PayPal logo looks like, colours used, etc. In fact, had the "P" been black or some other colour, PayPal may not have even cared.

They're also required to protect their Trademark, or they could potentially lose it. So I'd say cut PayPal some slack.

Not a case of "rounded corners" here.

Re:I can see the similarity

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn... So that's why every time I try to listen to some music, I end up sending money to someone !!

Re:I can see the similarity

[Patent Lover]

Lose it to who? PandoraPandora?

Re:I can see the similarity

[Kryptonut]

Didn't help when I tried to pay for my last eBay purchase in MP3's either

Re:I can see the similarity

[Kryptonut]

Nasty stutter you've got there.

Re:I can see the similarity

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn... So that's why every time I try to listen to some music, I end up sending money to someone !!

It's called a royalty. Dumass.

Re:I can see the similarity

[Maritz]

If you keep missing the point by as much as that, you're going to blow a hole in reality.

Re:I can see the similarity

[DontBeAMoran]

I'm guessing "P = Pandora, PP = PayPal / PandoraPandora"

Re:I can see the similarity

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't lose it to anyone, you just lose it. And without it, you cannot ask the government for help when PayPaul decides to use a logo similar to yours.

Stupid Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking to justify their retainer fees. I'm so sick of all legal BS lately. I'm going back to Liberty City and hiding out there; must... escape... reality...

This isn't about a trademark

[chromaexcursion]

The case is total bull.
Legal fees can be a killer, especially for a company trying to be profitable.
Someone is using PayPal as a shill to hurt Pandora. Hopefully a judge sees this and punts the dispute and makes PayPal pay Pandora's legal fees.

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[Duckman5]

This is absolutely about trademark. I recently started using Pandora again a few days ago. The first time I looked back at my phone I was confused because I hadn't purchased anything with Paypal recently. I didn't know why there was a notification. It was just Pandora. The logos, especially when monochrome, are strikingly similar. As far as I know, Trademark law requires Paypal to defend their mark or risk losing it, too.

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:This isn't about a trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

The logos ... are strikingly similar. As far as I know, Trademark law requires Paypal to defend their mark or risk losing it, too.

BINGO!

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[Duckman5]

You are correct that the trademark is only supposed to be in one area of industry. The problem is that sometimes that distinction isn't as clear as it probably should be. Pandora and Paypal are both technology companies as well as their primary purposes (music and finance, respectively). That is definitely a reason to give pause and may be enough for Paypal's lawyers to prevail. Go back and take a look at Apple Corp vs Apple Computer. One was a record company and the other sold computers. But the computers could make and record audio and that was enough. The battle raged on for 30 years before Apple Computer finally won.

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[Capsaicin]

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

Except in those circumstances where they are valid irrespective of the goods and/or services for which a mark is used.

How faithfully has TRIPS protection for well-known marks been reproduced in US law; is PayPal's trademark a "well-known mark;" could the use by Pandora of a similar logo suggest a connection between the companies; and would PayPal's interest in their mark be harmed by such an implied connection? These would be the questions we need answered before coming to any definitive answer on this point.

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[Dog-Cow]

Every company is a technology company. That is a stupid, meaningless and shit-headed distinction to try and make. With the possible exception of prostitution, I can't think of any business that doesn't use technology.

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[jpaine619]

Obvious you don't know what you are talking about. As has been pointed out, if a logo/trademark is very well know, the scope of its protection can extend beyond an industry. Try setting up a company called Iced Brew Mocha and using a logo similar to IBM's. You'd be sued and you would lose. IBM's logo is globally recognized. Doesn't matter that they don't make Mocha. It'll be up to a judge or a jury to decide if PayPal is a widely known logo.

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[aevan]

Prostitution went hi-tech a while ago- portable credit card readers, online booking, apps/sites for ratings/reviews of workers and clients, background checks etc. Even surveillance detection for the more paranoid. The Sex Industry is a rather early-adopter.

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[loonycyborg]

I'm pretty sure there's an app for prostitution too..

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford Motor Company and Ford Models are both physical companies as well as their primary purposes (automobiles and modeling agency, respectively). That is definitely a reason to give pause and may be enough for Ford's lawyers to prevail.

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[phorm]

But if you read the actual complaint, there are plenty of examples of people getting confused between the logos on mobile devices.

It's not such a big deal for the logo on their site or a piece of paper, but as the identifier for an app it probably makes sense for Pandora to change it.

That said, perhaps companies should invest in a better logo than a solid coloured alphabet letter (or two).

Re:This isn't about a trademark

[thegarbz]

They both look like companies offering a service over the internet to me. And that's kind of the problem. Trademarks are like patents they are full of legalese registered in generic categories.

Paypal and Pandora both are listed as a Class 9 trademark for computers and scientific instruments. Worth noting is that Monster Cables has registered the word Monster as a trade mark in 70 different ways. Industry alone is not in question.

Nonsense.

[santiago]

Paypal's logo looks like the butt of someone wearing blue jeans. Pandora's does not.

Re:Nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Paypal's logo looks like the butt of someone wearing blue jeans. Pandora's does not.

You discriminating against me cause I'm an amputee?! I see how it is!

Re:Nonsense.

[Trogre]

What has been seen cannot be un-seen.

App stores

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't the appstores under different requirements and enforce their own ecosystems? Wouldn't paypal need to take this up with Google and Apple, etc? It's not like Google or Apple stores are gov regulated per user over the orgs themselves. Too much grey area here I think.

Trademark Registration

[GumphMaster]

In my country (Australia) a trademark needs to be registered and used in specified classes of goods (34 classes) or services (11 classes). PayPal would fall squarely into "Class 36 Electronic payment services" and Pandora "Class 38 Delivery of digital music by telecommunications". These two trademarks would not clash here (even if PayPal had registered in class 38 they are not using that mark for PayPal Music). Do trademarks work differently in the US?

Protection of the IP in the design is not the same thing as trademark protection.

Re:Trademark Registration

[GumphMaster]

In Australia PayPal's double-P is registered in classes 9, 35, 36, 42. Search

Pandora does not seem to have registered their "P" in Australia, but the name "Pandora" is registered in classes 9, 38, and 41. Search

They overlap in "Class 9 Application software", so if Pandora registered the "P" mark here in the same classes there may be a clash.

Re:Trademark Registration

[meerling]

In the US, it seems that anything related to IP can be fought over with hordes of rabid lawyers if you have enough money.

Pied Piper

[goombah99]

Isn't that the Pied Piper logo? I liked pied pipers original door art work better than their final one.

Re:Pied Piper

[Patent Lover]

It's Piper Chat now. The logo is moot now.

Re:Pied Piper

[supremebob]

You're a few episodes behind, buddy. They're bringing back Pied Piper as a "peer to peer mobile internet" thing.

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

GayGal sues Google

sue progressive. also a blue P

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=blue%20p%20logo%20progressive

Will never be confused with each other

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on! One is a "P" and the other is pee-pee.

They are Ps

[XSportSeeker]

Why would Pandora like to be confused with PayPal? Is there any actual reason for it? Would it benefit Pandora in any way to be confused with an online payment system?

I mean, sure, they look similar... but it's not like the PayPal logo is something unique. Slanted Ps in blue with the most basic principle of minimalism applied, big f*cking whoop. It's lazy design in it's ultimate form.

And please.. pleeease, if you are a designer/typographer with the urge to reply to me to say how a logo like that takes hundreds of man hours to come about, and how much time and money companies invest into that, please don't. It's a stupid f*cking P.

Re:They are Ps

[DontBeAMoran]

Load Word/Pages/whatever and type an uppercase P in each and every font installed on your computer, in both regular, bold, extra-bold, etc if available.

Each of those fonts took hundreds of hours to make because fonts are complex and have a huge list of requirements to meet.

Just because you don't know any of this doesn't mean it's not true.

Re:They are Ps

[bluefoxlucid]

PayPal argues that Pandora wants people to accidentally go to Pandora instead of PayPal.

Their argument is ridiculous, since people with the Pandora app are already Pandora customers, and confusion doesn't help Pandora in that case. The remaining claims are reasonable.

Portland Art Museum

[bitMonster]

Their logo is identical to Pandora's new one. It's exactly the same in every respect except for the color. PAM has been using that logo for several years, at least.

https://portlandartmuseum.org/

Re:Portland Art Museum

[samwichse]

Well, they'd better sue Pandora before they lose their trademark on it.

Trademarks have to be actively defended.

Tldr: Can't sell red and white Coke clothing

[raymorris]

Here's the short form of what he above poster said:

Yes, a trademark only covers the types of things you sell.
Apple can sell computers, while Apple sells records, with no problem. Buyers won't confuse Apple records with Apple computers.

The problem only arises when Apple (computers) starts selling music (itunes) or a possibly a music workstation.

HOWEVER, if you see a red shirt with white lettering that says COKE, or Coca Cola, buyers will likely associate that with the beverage company. A brand as famous and strong as Coke could cause confusion on most any merchandise.

Re:Tldr: Can't sell red and white Coke clothing

[mysidia]

HOWEVER, if you see a red shirt with white lettering that says COKE, or Coca Cola, buyers will likely associate that with the beverage company.

Yes. However, Trademark law is not around to prevent you from accidentally launching the wrong program on your computer. Or is it?

It seems like this is an issue for Apple to deal with, regarding developer policies, By demanding one of the two App developers change their icon.

Paypal thinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Paypal thinks that their costumers are complete idiots ?

Re:Paypal thinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought that was a proven fact years ago.

That is not how Trade Mark registration works

[Flytrap]

Many company's register their trade marks in adjacent industries, not just the classes that they operate in. This it to allow possible future expansion, as well as to prevent something like this from happening - a company in a different, but adjacent industry, having a similar mark as your own.

I headed up payments and collections innovation in a large major bank, and we defined adjacent industries quite broadly. Most people think of adjacent industries or sectors as being those related to what they do... but we defined it as being " ...where there is a strong likelihood of there being significant customer or enduser overlap with a small or negligible symmetric difference. "

I would guess that PayPal believes that there is a high overlap in Pandora's and PayPal's users, with a very small symmetric difference, making the likelihood that most of the people seeing the new Pandora logo will do so within a materially narrow time-space of having interacted with the PayPal logo - which would lead to both brand dilution as well as brand association, at least in the short term while people are getting used to the revised Pandora logo.

Re:That is not how Trade Mark registration works

[Anonymous Coward]

Many company's register their trade marks in adjacent industries, not just the classes that they operate in.

This is a US lawsuit, though, and in the US there's no registration (or rights) without use. The only exception is the famous mark situation discussed above or where the in-use goods or services themselves are closely enough related to the accused goods or services that a likelihood of confusion exists.

TBH..

[Anonymous Coward]

to be honest, both companies should be filed under " i " for irrelevancy.

PayPal decided to be in the news

[laughingskeptic]

PayPal's media awareness dropped to 5 year lows, the board was afraid that this would affect their stock price. When their geeks didn't have anything to make a splash with they turned to their attorneys. Nothing to see here folks ...

Never

[zakzor]

I use both services and never saw any similarities between the logos.

If you want to be unique, try not to be so generic

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate when this thing happens because it's blind to the fact they picked a SUPER GENERIC idea to use for a logo.

Ok what is their logo.... it's a letter of the english language... made bigger without any distinguishing features, and colored blue which happens to be one of the worlds favorite colors in aggregation.

If you want to be so distinguished and obvious, perhaps YOU should pick another logo because I think any company should be able to use any letter of the alphabet, in the worlds most favorite color, as long as it's not copying anothers work.

I don't see arms or legs coming off the "P". There's no smiley face on it or any other distinguishing marks so I'd argue anyone else can use a generic letter "P" colored blue and they can't do anything about it.

It's like placing a character with a black shirt on a TV show, then sue clothing companies for infringement because a black T is "your characters shirt".

Try harder to be distinguished and you then can lay claims like these once copied. If the paypal logo had arms and legs coming off the P with a big smiley, I'd have said Pandora was infringing if their logo includes a P with arms/legs and a smiley face.... even if it wasn't blue. See how that works?

Note Paypal did contact Pandora

[Anonymous Coward]

Pandora should not be shocked by this lawsuit. Nobody is going to prepare 110 pages document and not follow up on it. I have to say the P is way too similar. Italic, take away the gradient, and round out the left side, and you got yourself P(al). Pandora could have easily made subtle change to distinguish itself

"According to PayPal, it made attempts to resolve the logo issue "amicably," both by letter and by phone. After a letter was ignored, PayPal spoke with Pandora, which indicated it was unaware of any confusion about the logo.

"PayPal then wrote again and provided over 110 pages of examples of consumer confusion and chatter about the similarities of the new logo," the suit states. "These efforts by PayPal proved fruitless. Pandora abruptly ended discussions by making clear early on that it did not acknowledge widespread consumer confusion or frustration experienced by some PayPal’s users and was not willing to engage in future discussions."

Patently Unlawful

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should teach paypal's lawyer that this is not about patent law but trademark infringement.

You're missing the big picture

[Solandri]

A logo based on a stylized letter of the alphabet should not receive trademark protection, period. If you want your logo to be protected, you're going to have to be a bit more creative than taking a letter of the alphabet, tilting it, removing its hole, giving it a color, and declaring it belongs to you and nobody else is allowed to do something similar. Facebook set a really bad precedent. Despite how useless I think Twitter is, at least they came up with a creative and recognizable logo.

tl;dr - Letters of the alphabet should not be trademarkable, in any shape or form. It just creates too much risk of accidental infringement.

I think I've heard this before....

[zerocommazero]

"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."

Both should lose

[Stan92057]

I think both should lose, both and all companys shouldnt be allowed to copyright any Letters of the alphabet or numbers fruits or veggies, plants or trees, animals, bugs you get the idea.. Copyright your business name that's it move on.

Dear PayPal

[GrumpySteen]

Your reputation is pretty bad. People confusing you with Pandora is more likely to improve how they think of you, so you might want to roll with it.

P Trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a trademark on the letter P. I'll make Pandora pay, and make PayPal pay twice.

Supposed to protect consumer from wrong product

[raymorris]

> However, Trademark law is not around to prevent you from accidentally launching the wrong program on your computer. Or is it?

That's an interesting question. Launching or installing (Roughly using or buying). It's supposed to be primarily* to protect the consumer from getting a product or service other than the one the think they are getting. If you're trying to get Paypal, and you make a selection based on the Paypal trademark / service mark, but end up with the wrong service due to a confusingly similar mark, there is a case to be made.

I take no position on who should win, but given Paypal has documented many examples of actual consumer confusion, it's not a ridiculous case.

* also it is supposed to protect those who spend years providing a quality service in order to build a trusted brand. But mostly it's supposed to be about if the consumer ends up with something other than what they are trying to get.

Re:Supposed to protect consumer from wrong product

[mysidia]

Launching or installing (Roughly using or buying).

Launching and Installing are very different.
The process of installing typically starts with you finding the App; which is not just
a Logo but a Name + Description + Logo.

The examples of potential confusion then Are only from people who are already customers of Both businesses' products trying to quickly launch one or the other.
They made a mistake and started the wrong program on their PC. They won't wind up doing business with Pandora mistakenly thinking they're doing business with PayPal, or vice-versa. The users will be annoyed they mistakenly failed to recognize the nuanced distinctiveness of the App icons, But it's not true brand confusion ---- Brand confusion is you walk out of the store having purchased a confusingly-labelled product, take it home, and attribute your experience to the other product.

This is reminiscent the users who try to Force-feed a USB cable into an Ethernet port.
Should the USB device creators be sued for infringing upon the Ethernet port's concept of a square slot you plug things into?

Siemens Healthineers vs FitBit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Siemens Healthineers vs FitBit. - Similar logo. 'healthcare' product similar colour. similar arrow facing right with dots......
- Separated at birth maybe?

Another similar logo

[Anonymous Coward]

IF you want to see even more similar logos, check BEATS logo and IBM's Bigfix Logo, noticed a similarity there as well

Much less than that - deceptive marking alone

[raymorris]

Imagine if another app had an icon that looked EXACTLY like your favorite web browser, perhaps Firefox. So every time you tried to use the web you have a 50/50 chance of getting Facebook's app instead. That would be a) highly annoying and b) unfair for Facebook to trick users into opening the Facebook app instead of their web browser. If they did that by copying the Chrome or Firefox logo, that would be trademark violation.

> Brand confusion is you walk out of the store having purchased a confusingly-labelled product, take it home, and attribute your experience to the other product.

Not according to any court, anywhere. When you want Coca-Cola, and you pick up a bottle that appears to be marked with Coke's trademark and put it into your basket, that's brand confusion. That would be a problem, even if when you got home you realized they had tricked you into buying Cocka-Colla. Consumers shouldn't be tricked into using, buying, installing, etc products and services by deceptive markings.

Note that "oh but our red and and white bottle says Coka, not Coke" doesn't make it not deceptive. If it fools people into picking up the wrong product, it's deceptive.

Re:Much less than that - deceptive marking alone

[mysidia]

When you want Coca-Cola, and you pick up a bottle that appears to be marked with Coke's trademark and put it into your basket, that's brand confusion.

Yes.... Now you are splitting hairs. Going to the supermarket and picking up the item is the Marketing of a product for Sale,
not the use of a product; the marketing of a product at a supermarket is considered part of the transaction, so it's subject to regulation, even though it would otherwise be 1st-amendment-protected speech to use whatever logo you want.

Consumers shouldn't be tricked into using, buying, installing, etc

It's only the Buying/Selling as part that a trademark protects, hence the name "Trademark" --- Only
use of the mark in Trade. For other activities, the 1st amendment wins.

One could go put together your own personal Coke T-Shirt, and wear as much as you want without recourse available to Coke.

Also, when you are done with your Coke cola bottle, you can fill it up with lemonade, and consume it publicly,
you can even give away re-used coke bottles filled up with Lemonade, and there will be no recourse available for
Coke, unless you do this directly to conduct a Trade --- An exchange of value for goods and services.

Now then.... back to Pandora.... If a person already has this app on their phone, then there's no transaction with the consumer executed merely by clicking on a Logo; they've not been enticed to do something they didn't setup to do ----- You don't get as far as installing the app without searching for or finding the Company name, so it's not presented as Just a Logo like a Coke bottle is.

Most don't buy Pandora services app installed, NBC

[raymorris]

Most people don't buy Pandora services at the time they install the app. The revenue-generating commmercial activity, the trade, occurs when you use the service. You literally trade ads for music. Speaking of "hence the term", hence the term service mark, applicable when you're using a service.

Were that not true, your argument would imply it's okay for me to make a TV network called NBC, amd there would be no trademark or service mark issues because viewers don't pay with CASH when they watch, they pay by watching ads.

Re:Most don't buy Pandora services app installed,

[mysidia]

your argument would imply it's okay for me to make a TV network called NBC, amd there would be no trademark or service mark issues

They would go after the companies who are advertising products for sale on your service.

I think you could; However, the FCC would not permit you to do this, and would levy big-time fines if you tried, because they regulate the spectrum, and Cable, and some of the rules amount to You may not mis-identify your signal or transmit a false, deceptive, or misleading signal. Doing so can impact your licenses or result in criminal charges. Another station already has a license registration that allows them to use that station name, so you can't, because to broadcast you will have to register your own station name, And they're not going to let your name be NBC.