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

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

[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. ;)

Toss Both

[Luthair]

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

Re: Toss Both

[infolation]

News for typography nerds:

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

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: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: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: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.