all BCBS registered marks, which I found in TESS, are word/design marks, which means the blue cross on its own is not protected, it is only protected when it is accompanied by the word mark
As I noted in my post, though, marks don't have to be registered in order to be protected. Even if BCBS doesn't have any instances of the blue cross alone registered with the USPTO[0], that doesn't mean that BCBS couldn't still have trademark rights to it.
while we have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing our use of the mark
I'm not convinced - there are many (seemingly) clearer-cut cases that have gone the other way. I'm not saying that this is the ideal state of trademark law, but I think that there's reasonable precedent for it.
they have enough money to try to enforce the mark without putting a dent in their litigation budget
I agree that this is probably the dominant reason.
[0] Which I would not necessarily conclude based solely on the fact that you couldn't find it. It's not a comment on your searching skills; I've used it before, and TESS (the USPTO database search) sucks.
100% agree with you. A story I have told a few times on HN was getting a C&D letter for the use of the mark "blood" on a previous product I manufactured, and a basic search on TESS of "blood" will not turn up the registered mark (turns up a lot of other marks that include blood, but not blood by itself) I can only find it searching the registration number. Watsi is being classy by not even naming the company, but I would like to see the C&D or demand letter they received.
Watsi is being classy by not even naming the company
There is no doubt as to who a multi-billion dollar health insurance company who would take issue with a logo that is literally a blue cross with a triangle cut out of it. I didn't read their post as classy, but rather snarky. I don't have a problem with them calling out BCBS, but I don't think it is at all classy the way they did it. They may have avoided saying BCBS for legal reasons, but that doesn't make it classy.
I'm sorry to hear you thought the post was snarky. Our goal was to bid a lighthearted farewell to our blue logo and raise money for patients. No hard feelings toward the company. We chose not to name them because it wasn't the point of the post, not because of any legal obligation.
To me, it just seemed like they were having fun with it. I didn't sense any bitterness. Not being from the US, I didn't connect the dots about who the multi-billion dollar company is. Now that I understand, I still don't think the approach lacks class.
can you provide me with relevant case law where "seemingly" clearer cut cases have gone the other way? im just curious. honestly, it seems crazy that just because a company uses a blue cross, no other companies can use a blue cross. bcbs' logo has a person on it and watsi's has a triangle. this is literally baffling to me. they aren't even remotely related, except tangentially through, what, human health?
i mean, i "get it" but wow. no words.
Comments
As I noted in my post, though, marks don't have to be registered in order to be protected. Even if BCBS doesn't have any instances of the blue cross alone registered with the USPTO[0], that doesn't mean that BCBS couldn't still have trademark rights to it.
I'm not convinced - there are many (seemingly) clearer-cut cases that have gone the other way. I'm not saying that this is the ideal state of trademark law, but I think that there's reasonable precedent for it.
I agree that this is probably the dominant reason.
[0] Which I would not necessarily conclude based solely on the fact that you couldn't find it. It's not a comment on your searching skills; I've used it before, and TESS (the USPTO database search) sucks.
100% agree with you. A story I have told a few times on HN was getting a C&D letter for the use of the mark "blood" on a previous product I manufactured, and a basic search on TESS of "blood" will not turn up the registered mark (turns up a lot of other marks that include blood, but not blood by itself) I can only find it searching the registration number. Watsi is being classy by not even naming the company, but I would like to see the C&D or demand letter they received.
I'm sorry to hear you thought the post was snarky. Our goal was to bid a lighthearted farewell to our blue logo and raise money for patients. No hard feelings toward the company. We chose not to name them because it wasn't the point of the post, not because of any legal obligation.
To me, it just seemed like they were having fun with it. I didn't sense any bitterness. Not being from the US, I didn't connect the dots about who the multi-billion dollar company is. Now that I understand, I still don't think the approach lacks class.
are you the blood energy drink guy?
can you provide me with relevant case law where "seemingly" clearer cut cases have gone the other way? im just curious. honestly, it seems crazy that just because a company uses a blue cross, no other companies can use a blue cross. bcbs' logo has a person on it and watsi's has a triangle. this is literally baffling to me. they aren't even remotely related, except tangentially through, what, human health? i mean, i "get it" but wow. no words.