21

Someone just registered a trademark on the word "Mama"

UK00003645697

Status: Registered
Mark type: Word
Mark text: Mama
File date: 23 May 2021
Classes: 42

What does it mean for digital sellers, on Etsy for example? Can we sell things that use the word "Mama"? Can we use it in tags?

Community
  • 1
Alexey Tseitlin
  • 327
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
  • More information is here. – Weather Vane Nov 24 '21 at 18:02
  • 2
    There are dozens of word marks for the word "mama" going back decades. You can't use "mama" of it would infringe on any of those that are still active, and you can use "mama" if it doesn't infringe. To learn about what kind of use might infringe, you might start with the Wikipedia article on trade mark protection. – phoog Nov 25 '21 at 17:54
  • 1
    IANAL, but in a quick reading of the trademark from the link provided by @WeatherVane, it appears that the trademark pertains to graphic design companies, which means that you couldn't create another graphic design company with the name "Mama" in the UK, but this would by no means restrict the use of the word "mama" in other contexts. – Glen Yates Nov 26 '21 at 13:52
  • Yipes! And I thought that the U.S. PTO was lax. – ohwilleke May 31 '22 at 22:40

4 Answers4

30

Trademarks apply only to a limited field. If you follow the link, it reports that it applies to class 42, graphic art design.

So you are free to use (and register "mama" for your food delivery service, for example.

SJuan76
  • 5,879
  • 1
  • 23
  • 28
30

You should be fine.

Because, at the least, your use pre-dates the trademark.

enter image description here

Exactly this came up in Burger King (of Florida) v. Hoots, and it resulted not only in the predecessor keeping their name, but having market exclusivity in their area. (they were trying for "all of Illinois" but the judge decided it was not realistic to think people would drive 50 miles to eat at a burger stand. Clearly, the judge had never heard of In-n-Out.)

This was also a thorn in the side of Apple Computer. You see, the Beatles' in-house record label is called Apple Corps. This was when Apple was tiny and the Beatles could have squashed them like a bug. But a very reasonable "peaceful coexistence" was reached... where Apple would stay out of music and the Beatles would stay out of computers.

That got messier and messier as computers got better and got tone generators (for gaming, largely), able to interact with MIDI, gained the ability to sample sounds and replay samples (many older Mac users are familiar with a chime called "Sosumi" (read it phonetically LOL). And of course, the iPod and the iTunes Music Store were right over the top. It's been complicated.

Harper - Reinstate Monica
  • 19,563
  • 2
  • 27
  • 81
  • Another example was Black Angus Restaurants. They had to use another name in Oregon because someone else had already used the name there. At least that's the story I got decades ago when I lived there. Not finding any confirmation online. – WGroleau Nov 25 '21 at 06:54
  • 5
    In Germany, there is (was?) a document courier company (as in physical documents) called G-Mail, which is the reason Google's Mail offering was known as Google Mail (at the domain googlemail.com) in Germany. G-Mail had planned to get into digital document management services, which is why they registered their mark for electronic mail as well. They never used it, though, so a couple of years ago, Google Mail was rebranded as Gmail in Germany. – Jörg W Mittag Nov 25 '21 at 07:21
  • 4
    Same in UK, for several years - googlemail – Stilez Nov 25 '21 at 08:58
  • 17
    the Beatles' in-house record label is called Apple Corps (who even knew this?) - all Beatles fans and anyone over 60? – Michael Harvey Nov 25 '21 at 15:33
  • 1
    Eh, this totally does not apply in Germany for example. The case you cite is a US case while the trademark is a UK trademark. So technically, as a UK trademark isn't any good in the US, this answer could bed shortened to: "For the US this trademark doesn't apply." – DonQuiKong Nov 25 '21 at 16:56
  • @Don Apple Corps is not a U.K. trademark? I think I lost the thread. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Nov 25 '21 at 17:29
  • 7
    @MichaelHarvey I'm under 60, but I still remember the apple label on the first Beatles record I ever saw. – phoog Nov 25 '21 at 17:55
  • 2
    I think that lots of people are very aware that the Beatles have a company called Apple Corps. The records label was even a picture of an apple. Historically it did more then just music - they had Apple Films and even Apple Electronics, which was probably an issue for the computer company. – Stormcloud Nov 26 '21 at 11:15
  • @Stormcloud but wasn't Apple Corps just a rich boys' playground / patronage scheme? Was it ever a serious rival to anyone? – Weather Vane Nov 26 '21 at 17:14
  • Eh no, but the trademark in the question is. So basically, the question is "This trademark that only covers the UK, does it affect me?" and your answer is "according to a law that totally doesn't apply it wouldn't." Or am I missing something? – DonQuiKong Nov 26 '21 at 18:17
  • Who DIDN'T know that the Beatles' company was called Apple Corps? Oh dear, I must be getting old. – Michael Kay Nov 27 '21 at 19:20
  • 1
    Edited. I concede the point in Beatles/Apple Corps. I switched to CDs just a few years after getting into music... I forget how iconic the 4" circle in the middle of the LP could be, spinning hypnotically... – Harper - Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '21 at 21:28
  • @WeatherVane "honest ventures which suffered too much executive meddling" is an equally plausible explanation... – Harper - Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '21 at 21:30
  • @Weather Vane, Originally there were supposed to be 5 arms to the Apple Corp business. I believe they were very serious about the Music and Film arms, but yes I guess a playground isn't a bad description of the Electronics and Fashion arms. The other arm was publishing, but I don't know what that ever did. – Stormcloud Nov 29 '21 at 09:49
1

First of all, trademarks are specific to a country. The mark refereed to in the question was registered in the UK, It has no effect in the US, Canada, Europe, or anywhere outside the UK.

Secondly, trademarks are normally restricted by category (except for "famous" marks). This mark was registered in class 43, graphic arts design. So any use outside tht category would not be in fringing.

Thirdly, this mark was registered on 12 November 2021. One who can prove continuing use in trade prior to that date may be able to claim exemption, even if the use is in the UK and in class 42.

Fourthly, if the tr4adfemark seems to be invalid under UK law, ther are procedures to challange it. But these are available only for a limited time after registration.

Fifthly, if the applicant does not use the mark, it can be canceled after a number of years.

Sixthly, the mark is protected only if it is used as a brand name or designation of source, or in such a way that i reasonably implies thstm the product or service is sponsored by or approved by the owner of the trademark. Other uses are not infringing.

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404
-3

I found the word "MAMA" was registered as early as 1984-12-11. Here is the trademark detail. It was registered under "staple foods" category. We've been calling our mama without infringing it for years just fine :)

Almost all common English words are trademarks now. But we're just using "fair use" of them in our everyday lives.

tmtm007
  • 11
  • 2