Accused of Using Words and Graphics That Resemble a Competitor's Logo

I received a letter from my competition. I just started out a small business. Here is a picture of the letter. I also have a you tube video and they are saying the first part of the Font is to close to there font. Here is my you tube video http://youtu.be/Jq7vO7fmpcI
They are also claiming my wording that I put on a picture on my website (Safe - Easy - Works) is a resemblance of there marketing. The only thing that is TM is Metal Rescue which they show on the letter. Please Help. Can they take me to court or they trying to scary me?

here is the pic of the letter.
http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps3ba93942.jpg

Quote:

---

Quoting LiquidSpecialties

---

Can they take me to court or they trying to scary me?

---

The obvious answer to both those questions is yes, they CAN take you to court and yes, they are trying to scare you.

Frankly, though, I'm not sure I see a trademark infringement there. Metal Rust Remover is rather generic even if Metal Rescue is not.

The trouble is, which one of you has the most money to pay lawyers during a protracted court case?

You've got a couple of options.

Ignore the letter and keep doing what you are doing and take your chances.

Or

Hire a trademark lawyer to advise you on whether to ignore the letter or respond to it via your attorney.

The latter is probably a better way to go.

It's easy to write those letters. Frankly, I'd ignore them. All three claims are pretty specious. As pointed out the term "Metal Rust Remover" is pretty generic. The font in the you tube video and on their packaging seems to just be a plain sans-serif font, hardly distinctive. The latter claim doesn't even begin to show any trademark or other protectable principle.

First and foremost, your post raises one of the problems we encounter with trademark issues in the forum -- we don't want you to actually identify yourself in the forum, but unless you share identifying information there's not much we can do because trademark claims can turn on details that you can't capture in a generic example. You identified yourself, which allows more specific comment, but you need to be very careful about what you say as your comments on this matter can be used in court. Also, although we can share our opinions on this matter, due to the nature of trademark law you should consider running the issue past your own lawyers with an eye toward what this company is likely to do, as well as for review of your marketing and branding in general. Even if we're correct in our analysis, "Some guy on a free Internet forum told me..." is not the sort of argument that typically sways the other side in a trademark dispute or litigation.

My reaction to the first point is that "rust remover" itself is very generic and descriptive. "Metal rust remover" seems a bit redundant, as what other type of rust might we be talking about, and is arguably still descriptive. But assuming it's not, "Metal rust" is not a term that is unique to your competitor, and there are plenty of examples of the phrase that you can find through a simple online search for companies marketing a range of rust removal products as being for "metal rust", for "metal rust paint", and the like. If you were using the word "Rescue" I would find the claim much more compelling, but references to metal and rust in a product name for a compound that removes metal from rust seems to be pretty descriptive. Rust Bullet also used the phrase, as does a company called Rusterizer.

As for the alleged similarity of the font used in their packaging versus the font that appears in your video, the font is very generic and the trademark that they hold that I was able to find relates to the words, not a graphic. They seem to be arguing that you can't use any sans serif font in your marketing, or perhaps it's any sans serif font with white lettering, because they use white sans serif lettering on one of their products.

I don't see any indication that they have sought trademark protection for the concept of "clean, safe, easy", and as it stands that particular series of words is anything but special or unique. I'm not sure what they mean by suggesting that the layout of your website resembling their ads, but if that's the case (no offense) they should hire a better ad agency. Having marketing materials that resemble each other, of itself, falls far short of establishing a viable trademark or trade dress claim.

My guess is that this notice was inspired by your becoming competitive in online searches for words and phrases that they monitor.

He doesn't even use the same series of words. To assert that you own all three word sequences which include adjectives such as safe and easy. I see little in common between the sites. While Liquid Specialties site is a bit annoying in the fact you can't really get direct to the product details, Metal Hero site is clearly a candidate for "web pages that suck." I don't see any resemblance at all other than that they both could use so work with an expert web designer.

The final allegation is not clear, but I think the allegation is that the website resembles their printed advertising. I don't think anybody could confuse the two websites.

I looked up the possibilities of the trademark aspect of infringement and found that all the registered trademarks of SKS Industries, be it Metal Rescue or Hero Workshop do not make any claim as to style or font. All of their registration are for "standard character mark" which makes no claim as to style or appearance. It is a trademark for phrase only. So the letter threat on style or appearance seems pretty empty.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...801:9zt3jk.3.1

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...801:9zt3jk.3.2

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...804:735497.2.2

The name "Metal Rust Remover" is not in the trademark database. I suspect that no trademarks have been granted as (has already been said) is too generic. The same is true for "safe easy works".

I checked out both websites and it is clearly, in my mind, a battle of David and Goliath. From what I see, SKS industries is a big company and they can litigate until the cows come home. But I don't see them having any real case of infringement. It's too bad it has come to this.

I was unaware that the links would expire, I'm sorry about that. I will post the serial numbers instead if anyone wants to look them up.

86180676
86180666
85216960

There hasn't been any litigation yet. All there has been is C&D letters. I've gotten C&D letters before in business. Sometimes when they are specious as this I just toss them. In other times when there has been more substance, I've responded (usually to assert that the market spaces don't cross but I would be sure to forward any misdirected inquiries about their products to them and wish them to do the same). I've never gotten anywhere near a court.

No point in rolling over now.