Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Businesses Technology

PayPal Sues Pandora Over 'Patently Unlawful' Logo (billboard.com) 136

Posted by BeauHD from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PayPal Sues Pandora Over 'Patently Unlawful' Logo More

PayPal Sues Pandora Over 'Patently Unlawful' Logo

Comments Filter:

  • WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Patent Lover ( 779809 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @07:51PM (#54467089)
    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.

    • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Capsaicin ( 412918 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @09:26PM (#54467525)

        But doesn't a trademark only cover a business area?

        That certainly used to be the case.

        With the introduction of TRIPS [wto.org] , 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 [wipo.int] 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. ;)

        • Here's the short form of what he above poster said:

          Yes, a trademark only covers the types of things you sell.
          Apple can sell computers, while Apple sells records, with no problem. Buyers won't confuse Apple records with Apple computers.

          The problem only arises when Apple (computers) starts selling music (itunes) or a possibly a music workstation.

          HOWEVER, if you see a red shirt with white lettering that says COKE, or Coca Cola, buyers will likely associate that with the beverage company. A brand as famous an

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            HOWEVER, if you see a red shirt with white lettering that says COKE, or Coca Cola, buyers will likely associate that with the beverage company.

            Yes. However, Trademark law is not around to prevent you from accidentally launching the wrong program on your computer. Or is it?

            It seems like this is an issue for Apple to deal with, regarding developer policies, By demanding one of the two App developers change their icon.

            • > However, Trademark law is not around to prevent you from accidentally launching the wrong program on your computer. Or is it?

              That's an interesting question. Launching or installing (Roughly using or buying). It's supposed to be primarily* to protect the consumer from getting a product or service other than the one the think they are getting. If you're trying to get Paypal, and you make a selection based on the Paypal trademark / service mark, but end up with the wrong service due to a confusingly si

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mysidia ( 191772 )

                Launching or installing (Roughly using or buying).

                Launching and Installing are very different.
                The process of installing typically starts with you finding the App; which is not just
                a Logo but a Name + Description + Logo.

                The examples of potential confusion then Are only from people who are already customers of Both businesses' products trying to quickly launch one or the other.
                They made a mistake and started the wrong program on their PC. They won't wind up doing business with Pandora mistakenly thin

                • Imagine if another app had an icon that looked EXACTLY like your favorite web browser, perhaps Firefox. So every time you tried to use the web you have a 50/50 chance of getting Facebook's app instead. That would be a) highly annoying and b) unfair for Facebook to trick users into opening the Facebook app instead of their web browser. If they did that by copying the Chrome or Firefox logo, that would be trademark violation.

                  > Brand confusion is you walk out of the store having purchased a confusingly-l

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by mysidia ( 191772 )

                    When you want Coca-Cola, and you pick up a bottle that appears to be marked with Coke's trademark and put it into your basket, that's brand confusion.

                    Yes.... Now you are splitting hairs. Going to the supermarket and picking up the item is the Marketing of a product for Sale,
                    not the use of a product; the marketing of a product at a supermarket is considered part of the transaction, so it's subject to regulation, even though it would otherwise be 1st-amendment-protected speech to use whatever log

                    • Most people don't buy Pandora services at the time they install the app. The revenue-generating commmercial activity, the trade, occurs when you use the service. You literally trade ads for music. Speaking of "hence the term", hence the term service mark, applicable when you're using a service.

                      Were that not true, your argument would imply it's okay for me to make a TV network called NBC, amd there would be no trademark or service mark issues because viewers don't pay with CASH when they watch, they pay b

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by mysidia ( 191772 )

                      your argument would imply it's okay for me to make a TV network called NBC, amd there would be no trademark or service mark issues

                      They would go after the companies who are advertising products for sale on your service.

                      I think you could; However, the FCC would not permit you to do this, and would levy big-time fines if you tried, because they regulate the spectrum, and Cable, and some of the rules amount to You may not mis-identify your signal or transmit a false, deceptive, or misleading signal. Doin

      • Many company's register their trade marks in adjacent industries, not just the classes that they operate in. This it to allow possible future expansion, as well as to prevent something like this from happening - a company in a different, but adjacent industry, having a similar mark as your own.

        I headed up payments and collections innovation in a large major bank, and we defined adjacent industries quite broadly. Most people think of adjacent industries or sectors as being those related to what they do... bu

    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Your.Master ( 1088569 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @08:14PM (#54467209)

      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.

      • 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.

        I think that they look similar enough to be confusing given the similar letter style and colors. My thought is that Pandora just needs to change the color of their logo to some other color than blue. That would be enough for me to distinguish between the two.

        • I think that they look similar enough to be confusing given the similar letter style and colors. My thought is that Pandora just needs to change the color of their logo to some other color than blue. That would be enough for me to distinguish between the two.

          Paypal's Logo is an actual distinguishable logo. Pandora's is a single letter without a hole. Changing the color isn't going to fix it. If you want a logo, you need to make it unique enough to be distinct. Lots of companies like Google and Facebook use a single letter but they also do something to make it truly unique. There is nothing unique about Pandora's current or previous letter P. I'm undecided whether Paypal has any grounds but I don't think Pandora should be able to trademark a blue letter.

      • Basically I find PayPal's estimation of my intelligence and that of all their other customers rather depressing. I rather doubt we're a collection of dunces that we'd mistake the two. On the other hand the similarity could lead to a misapprehension regarding the (lack of) relationship between the two. On the gripping hand, resorting to lawfare generally precedes the decline of all the other company products and services. I hope PayPal is an exception to this.

        {^_^}

        • ... resorting to lawfare generally precedes the decline of all the other company products and services. I hope PayPal is an exception to this.

          Personally, I hope PayPal is an exemplar of this. I would very much like to see them go down in flames and be replaced by something less evil and assholish.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ixidor ( 996844 )
        lets see, both have short names Both start with letter "P" both use generic-blue both have a minimalist icon design its like the difference between a galaxy and an iphone. both are rectangular with a largeish display screen i mean comon, how different can they be and both be minimalist, blue and fit in the icon space

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It appears that PayPal adopted this "double P" logo in 2014. Pandora adopted their P logo in the last few years too.

      • I completely agreed on your identification of differences of those 2 logos. Though, I would point out how visual priority comes into play.

        Most people who aren't color blind would quickly look and remember color much better than shape. In this case, the color of both logos are too awfully close even though Pandora has 1 P and Paypal has 2 Ps (no pun intended). In a long run, Paypal logo could be diluted to Pandora. I think that's the main issue that Paypal should use again Pandora new logo.

      • A logo based on a stylized letter of the alphabet should not receive trademark protection, period. If you want your logo to be protected, you're going to have to be a bit more creative than taking a letter of the alphabet, tilting it, removing its hole, giving it a color, and declaring it belongs to you and nobody else is allowed to do something similar. Facebook set a really bad precedent. Despite how useless I think Twitter is, at least they came up with a creative and recognizable logo.

        tl;dr - Lett

    • The first one looks like the pussy grabber's pee pee.

    • Isn't that the Pied Piper logo? I liked pied pipers original door art work better than their final one.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      one or two is a significant difference. PayPal should be more concerned about PlannedParenthood logo similaritites

    • That's what you get for being dumb enough to bet your money on a single letter based trademark (even if one of them is repeating the letter in what looks like a shadow instead of a separate letter.)
    • i am more worried that by using words with that letter in them that i am likely to get sued for defamation or someshit now. my comment was going to be witty with lots of words with the missing letter but it turns out i didnt need it even once for any of this.

    • 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.

      If the two companies are not in the same business, then there is no chance of loss of business for either side. I would just have the Single P logo have a line beneath the P to indicated incorproated or "since 19xx"

  • I take it there's a PayPal app that people actually use?

    (Switches over to the App Store to look)

    Okay, I guess they're worried about the double-vision demographic?

  • Toss Both (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @08:20PM (#54467241)
    How is it reasonable that anyone can own a blue P in a bland font.

  • I can see the similarity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kryptonut ( 1006779 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @08:26PM (#54467265)

    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.

  • The case is total bull.
    Legal fees can be a killer, especially for a company trying to be profitable.
    Someone is using PayPal as a shill to hurt Pandora. Hopefully a judge sees this and punts the dispute and makes PayPal pay Pandora's legal fees.

    • Re:This isn't about a trademark (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Duckman5 ( 665208 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @08:43PM (#54467353)
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by bmo ( 77928 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @09:18PM (#54467471)

        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

        • 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 [wikipedia.org]. One was a record company and the other sold computers. But the computers

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

            Every company is a technology company. That is a stupid, meaningless and shit-headed distinction to try and make. With the possible exception of prostitution, I can't think of any business that doesn't use technology.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by aevan ( 903814 )
              Prostitution went hi-tech a while ago- portable credit card readers, online booking, apps/sites for ratings/reviews of workers and clients, background checks etc. Even surveillance detection for the more paranoid. The Sex Industry is a rather early-adopter.
            • I'm pretty sure there's an app for prostitution too..

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by phorm ( 591458 )

              But if you read the actual complaint, there are plenty of examples of people getting confused between the logos on mobile devices.

              It's not such a big deal for the logo on their site or a piece of paper, but as the identifier for an app it probably makes sense for Pandora to change it.

              That said, perhaps companies should invest in a better logo than a solid coloured alphabet letter (or two).

        • But trademarks are only valid within the industry the company does business in.

          Except in those circumstances where they are valid irrespective of the goods and/or services for which a mark is used. [slashdot.org]

          How faithfully has TRIPS protection for well-known marks been reproduced in US law; is PayPal's trademark a "well-known mark;" could the use by Pandora of a similar logo suggest a connection between the companies; and would PayPal's interest in their mark be harmed by such an implied connection? These would be

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • They both look like companies offering a service over the internet to me. And that's kind of the problem. Trademarks are like patents they are full of legalese registered in generic categories.

          Paypal and Pandora both are listed as a Class 9 trademark for computers and scientific instruments. Worth noting is that Monster Cables has registered the word Monster as a trade mark in 70 different ways. Industry alone is not in question.

  • Paypal's logo looks like the butt of someone wearing blue jeans. Pandora's does not.

  • In my country (Australia) a trademark needs to be registered and used in specified classes of goods (34 classes) or services (11 classes). PayPal would fall squarely into "Class 36 Electronic payment services" and Pandora "Class 38 Delivery of digital music by telecommunications". These two trademarks would not clash here (even if PayPal had registered in class 38 they are not using that mark for PayPal Music). Do trademarks work differently in the US?

    Protection of the IP in the design is not the same

    • Re:Trademark Registration (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GumphMaster ( 772693 ) on Monday May 22, 2017 @09:25PM (#54467519)

      In Australia PayPal's double-P is registered in classes 9, 35, 36, 42. Search [ipaustralia.gov.au]

      Pandora does not seem to have registered their "P" in Australia, but the name "Pandora" is registered in classes 9, 38, and 41. Search [ipaustralia.gov.au]

      They overlap in "Class 9 Application software", so if Pandora registered the "P" mark here in the same classes there may be a clash.

    • In the US, it seems that anything related to IP can be fought over with hordes of rabid lawyers if you have enough money.

  • Why would Pandora like to be confused with PayPal? Is there any actual reason for it? Would it benefit Pandora in any way to be confused with an online payment system?

    I mean, sure, they look similar... but it's not like the PayPal logo is something unique. Slanted Ps in blue with the most basic principle of minimalism applied, big f*cking whoop. It's lazy design in it's ultimate form.

    And please.. pleeease, if you are a designer/typographer with the urge to reply to me to say how a logo like that takes hundr

    • Load Word/Pages/whatever and type an uppercase P in each and every font installed on your computer, in both regular, bold, extra-bold, etc if available.

      Each of those fonts took hundreds of hours to make because fonts are complex and have a huge list of requirements to meet.

      Just because you don't know any of this doesn't mean it's not true.

    • PayPal argues that Pandora wants people to accidentally go to Pandora instead of PayPal.

      Their argument is ridiculous, since people with the Pandora app are already Pandora customers, and confusion doesn't help Pandora in that case. The remaining claims are reasonable.

  • Their logo is identical to Pandora's new one. It's exactly the same in every respect except for the color. PAM has been using that logo for several years, at least.

    https://portlandartmuseum.org/ [portlandartmuseum.org]

    • Well, they'd better sue Pandora before they lose their trademark on it.

      Trademarks have to be actively defended.

  • PayPal's media awareness dropped to 5 year lows, the board was afraid that this would affect their stock price. When their geeks didn't have anything to make a splash with they turned to their attorneys. Nothing to see here folks ...
  • I use both services and never saw any similarities between the logos.
  • "Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."
  • I think both should lose, both and all companys shouldnt be allowed to copyright any Letters of the alphabet or numbers fruits or veggies, plants or trees, animals, bugs you get the idea.. Copyright your business name that's it move on.

  • Your reputation is pretty bad. People confusing you with Pandora is more likely to improve how they think of you, so you might want to roll with it.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close