• 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

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

15. February 2022

The music streaming service Spotify won a trademark dispute in the USA over the app name POTIFY – an app for medicial Marijuana. Spotify successfully claimed that its own brand SPOTIFY was diluted by the app name POTIFY – which was allegedly inspired by Shopify and ”pot”.

SPOTIFY v POTIFY

Such an accusation that one’s own well-known brand name would be diluted by a later similar trademark application can be successfully asserted by those trademark owners who are considered very well-known or famous.

This was no problem at all for SPOTIFY in the case ‘Spotify AB versus U.S. Software Inc.’ before the TTAB (Opposition Nos. 91243297 and 91248487), in which the Swedes took action against the app name POTIFY, which had been applied for as a trademark for a cannabis app. The globally successful music streaming service from Sweden has been offering its services in the USA since 2011. Spotify proved before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that it has 23.3 million likes on Facebook, 5.3 million followers on Instagram and 1 million subscribers on YouTube.

The absolute peak of demonstrable notoriety and fame came in 2017: after President Obama said he wanted to work at Spotify after leaving office, the music streaming service advertised a job as “President of Playlists” in January 2017, for which only he would have been qualified. This marketing and promotional coup was a hit on social media; on Twitter it was the number one of so-called “trending moment”.

Proof of awareness

A substantial part of the US population knows the SPOTIFY brand, this has been empirically proven: A large percentage of Americans are users or subscribers of SPOTIFY goods and services. And although the Swedish music streaming provider is now even more famous and well-known than before, it was already so in January 2017, when the POTIFY and POTIFY & Design brands were used for the first time for an app that can be used to order medical marijuana from corresponding dispensaries.

POTIFY – inspired by ‘Pot’ und ‘Shopify’?

In the opposition proceedings against POTIFY, it was – unsurprisingly – found that the POTIFY marks were very similar to the SPOTIFY mark.

In vain, the applicant for the POTIFY mark argued that the trademark term POTIFY comes from ‘pot’, a common pseudonym for marijuana, and that the suffix ‘-IFY,’ means that marijuana / pot can be found. In addition, he explained that the POTIFY platform wants to be like Shopify; Shopify is a stock listed Canadian e-commerce platform.

SPOTIFY – highly distinctive

But the TTAB rejected this argument. SPOTIFY was as famous as a trademark and had high distinctiveness.

Moreover, there was also no evidence that there were marks in the United States as close to SPOTIFY as the POTIFY mark. The TTAB considered it inevitable that POTIFY would be detrimental to SPOTIFY’s distinctiveness.

Therefore, the TTAB upheld the opposition of the famous music streaming service, finding that the use of the POTIFY marks would likely dilute the SPOTIFY mark. Therefore, the trademark registration of the term POTIFY was refused.

Conclusion

It is true that when a trade mark application is filed, the trade mark offices check whether so-called absolute grounds for refusal prevent the registration of the trade mark applied for. In Europe, these include the lack of distinctive character and also the fact that a trade mark is purely descriptive – and since the last trade mark law modernisation (in Germany as MaMoG on 14 January 2019) also the fact that a geographical indication and protected geographical designation of origin as well as a protected variety denomination are infringed.

However, an office search as in patent law does not take place for trade mark registrations. A trade mark application should therefore always be only the first step towards protection, followed by a continuous trade mark search. World-famous companies in particular keep an eye on every new trade mark application through trade mark searches, even if the trade marks are less similar. For example, Apple successfully took action against the cooking app ‘Prepear’ – we reported.

Any questions about trademark protection?

Do you have questions regarding a trade mark application or trade mark defence?


 

Sources:

Spotify AB v U.S. Software Inc., TTAB (Opposition Nos. 91243297 and 91248487)

Image:

own design based on StockSnap | pixabay | CCO License and nneem | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconApp,  App Name,  Cannabis App,  diluted mark,  distinctive character,  E-Commerce,  earlier mark,  famous,  Pot,  POTIFY,  Shopify,  SPOTIFY,  very well known mark,  word mark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

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.