KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

[BrianShaw]

If you sell cookies, it would not fly, if you sell T shirts with printed cookies perhaps it would fly.

Agreed... it all would depend on the court’s judgement on “similarly of good or service”.

IANAL, either... but fought and won a trademark infringement early in life. And lost one too, before completely losing interest in that particular dog-eat-dog rat-race.

[Pere Casals]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that "Kodak Everyday" is what they are calling their product.

IMHO they say Weasel Words, it looks their product name but it isn't. They could have said Mastin Labs Original with "Kodak Everyday ®" print paper look. But as they sell software and not photopaper nobody may think it's a fake kodak product if using "Kodak Everyday ®" as an adjective for their "Original" brand.

on the court’s judgement on “similarly of good or service”.

Also IANAL, but I also think this is a key factor.

[Corran]

A photo-related product, regardless of software vs. film, certainly seems close enough in scope to qualify for an infringement.

I also thought that the Kodak brand was being used directly in their name. If not, it sure seems like it. Regardless of any of our opinions, I am guessing a big corporation would pursue this. I will be very surprised if Kodak leaves it be.

[BrianShaw]

Printer paper versus software emulator... good luck with that product/service comparison.

But if Kodak just wanted their name to not be affiliated in any way with this really cool product, maybe the could do that. Big dogs...

https://trademarks.justia.com/870/89...-87089476.html

[Corran]

Many stories of trademark litigation for obviously disparate products/services out there. Doesn't matter if any of us think they are legitimate.

[BrianShaw]

Many stories of trademark litigation for obviously disparate products/services out there. Doesn't matter if any of us think they are legitimate.

That’s right... this is just random chatter. Most folks here are still trying to figure out what’s being “infringed”... a tm or a c or a”look” or a generic product line.

[DonJ]

There they also are on solid ground, because "Kodak Everyday" is a paper brand itself

Can you think of another example where the name of a company's product includes the name of another company's product, without permission? Not in the description, or in specifications that indicate the product "works with" or "is for" another product (e.g. aftermarket printer ink or auto parts). But in the name itself.

I don't see how this would survive a legal challenge from Kodak. But Kodak also has the option to allow it (IMO, when pigs fly).

[Pere Casals]

Can you think of another example where the name of a company's product includes the name of another company's product, without permission

I'd say that the product name does not contain "kodak": product name is "PRESETS BORN FROM FILM^TM".

Kodak is in the literature, not in their brand.

Let me show an example, you manufacture SuperMarcro^TM macro extension rings and your advertisement says:

SuperMarcro^TM for Canon®
SuperMarcro^TM for Nikon®

Your brand is SuperMarcro^TM, but Nikon® and Canon® is commercial literature that describes mount compatibility. Then you use ® and a disclaimer to not have a liability.

If you say Nikon® SuperMarcro^TM, then Nikon is and adjective for your product, not your brand. I guess...

[faberryman]

I'd say that the product name does not contain "kodak": product name is "PRESETS BORN FROM FILM^TM". Kodak is in the literature, not in their brand.

I thought the brand was Kodak Everyday^® Originals. Presents Born from Film^TM is the description.

[Corran]

Directly below the main title/banner, it says:

"Kodak Everyday Requires Lightroom 7.3"

I think there is no question that the name of the product is "Kodak Everyday Originals" if they refer to it there. They don't say, "Presets Born from Film Require Lightroom 7.3".