• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Battle for the blue P: PayPal sues music streaming provider Pandora

20. June 2017

PayPal Inc. sued internet radio provider Pandora mid-May over risk of confusion about the companies’ app-logos in the US and claims damages in an undisclosed amount.

Both companies use the stylized letter “P” in conjunction with white and blue elements for their logos.Both are doing business providing online services. But do these facts effectively constitute risk of confusion with costumers? Will financial damages actually develop for the online goliath if users open Pandora-app instead of PayPal-app accidentally and thus take a few seconds longer to get to the payment system?

After all the provided services differ significantly from each other, one provides a payment system another entertainment. Whoever mistakenly opens a streaming-app on his phone yet intended to make a billing transaction will quickly notice the “mishap”.

 

Music starts playing instead of payment: PayPal users are annoyed

Paypal certainly sees it that way and utilizes a number of tweets as proof. According to those PayPal users appear to be annoyed over the fact they can’t make their payment transactions as quickly as accustomed to or to instead unwillingly play music from an internet radio.

PayPal vs Pandora

The provider’s logo seems to loose some of the appeal customers appreciate about the transaction pal, at least to those having the Pandora-app on their device as well. By now it has become apparent: PayPal has need for action!

Direct trademark infringement might not be the case due to the each company’s field of business may very well be so far from one another that confusion of their products sources could be excluded. No average customer jumps at the mention of internet radios to the conclusion that such services be provided by a payment system company.

 

Classic case of trademark dilution

However this is where PayPal builds its case. The company has not just read user’s tweets stating they unwillingly played music in situations tunes were less desired. Apparently there were some users as well who wholeheartedly questioned whether the streaming provider had been bought by PayPal. Hence PayPal fears for its trademark to not be related with a payment systems platform only. This presents a classic case of trademark dilution! Pleading on a for many years unchanged trademark family defendant has now been requested to not use its logo in the present form.

 

How would this trademark case be treated from a European standpoint?

Firstly one should investigate whether mark identity or similar goods and services are present for both marks. If neither is the case, as present with the case of payment system platform and music stream provider, for an alleged infringement to be present it depends on the fact that the marks in question are at least similar to each other and the older mark’s esteem or distinctiveness might be harmed by the existence of the younger mark’s existence.

In this case the similarity of the logos is obvious: both marks contain the centered letter “P” in a similar type font and both marks predominantly use the colors blue and white; in Pandora’s logo the letter “P” is white and the background uses a blue hue, in PayPal’s logo the letter “P” uses a blue hue and the background is white.

Next, for an alleged infringement to be present it depends whether users confuse both logos with each other, because they deem the same provider behind the app’s logo. According to PayPal this supposedly occurs quite often.

 

How damaging is the confusion really for the company? US court decides

But are users really so irritated about the mix up they consider to stop using the payment system platform or even cease recommending it? Some of the user’s tweets PayPal presents in their lawsuit seemed to take the mix up with a grain of salt. In this particular case a New York court will have to decide about the pros and cons about an alleged trademark infringement.

We note for users having both apps: putting the logos on different screens or different corners of your devices. This way one can prevent unplanned concerts in a quiet office.

Our additional recommendation to everyone who’s planning to use a logo for his/her app in the future: check first, whether any provider has similar trademarks or logos.

We will be happy to handle this matter for you!

 

Are you suspected of having infringed trademark rights or is a competitor violating your rights?

Then we should talk to each other, because this is not to joke! Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your brand.

Make a free and non-binding call back-appointment today !

CAT-call_en

Source:

Graphic: Photomontage Dr. Meyer-Dulheuer & Partners LLP / The PayPal and Pandora Logo are protected as trademarks. They will only be used by us for editiorial purposes.

Text: From our Attorney at Law Ms. Jeannine Zorn

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconpandora,  Paypal,  Trademark

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.