Kamel e-liquid Copyright infringement??

[insane66613]

I know they changed the C to a K but they have Camel cig's that do spell Camel with a K. Would this be considered copyright infringement? How does vapor4life get away with this?

 

[mohawkx]

Good question. Maybe they won't get away with it. Sooner or later, some lawyer from Camel will see it and get a judge to issue a cease and desist order. Just like Marlboro did. On the other hand who cares?

 

[JudgeVape]

Yup, I have often thought that some of these juice vendors are just begging to have some attorney somewhere send them an angry letter (if they are lucky, it will end there). Consider especially that the tobacco industry is hardly thrilled that electronic cigarettes even exist. I have seen some Dekang vendor sites that don't even use slightly misspelled names, using "Marlboro" or "Newport" as the names of the juices. They are asking for it.

I noticed that BWB very recently (like within the past week) changed the name of their "Maxboro" juice to "Backo." I wonder if Don got a letter or if he is just (wisely) preempting a future problem.

 

[CapableVapable]

I always thought Desert Ship was a clever name.

 

[Zal42]

I know they changed the C to a K but they have Camel cig's that do spell Camel with a K. Would this be considered copyright infringement? How does vapor4life get away with this?

It's not copyright infringement at all, because names can't be copyrighted. It could be argued that it is trademark infringement, though, and changing the "c" to a "K" is an attempt to avoid infringing.

Trademark infringement is a little fuzzier than copyright -- direct copying is not necessary. The test is whether or not a reasonable consumer could confuse the products and mistakenly buy one, thinking that it is the other.

Juice vendors are likely to be on pretty safe ground here. There is a slim chance that they could even get away with calling it "Camel", although that is a close enough legal call that they would go broke defending themselves in court regardless of the legality.

In any case, they're almost certainly safe calling it "Kamel," as there is no possibility of consumer confusion. Now, if Philip Morris (or whoever makes Camels nowadays) got into the e-juice business, all bets would be off.

 

[JudgeVape]

...although that is a close enough legal call that they would go broke defending themselves in court regardless of the legality.

Bingo. And lawyers for large corporations are very well aware of this fact.

In any case, they're almost certainly safe calling it "Kamel," as there is no possibility of consumer confusion.

There I am going to have to disagree with you. One letter is still plenty of room to make a pretty solid trademark infringement case. Much less worthy cases than this have been won. Here are two recent ones that spring to mind in the world of alcohol.

1. Georgetown Brewing Company felt compelled to change the name of their "9LB" porter to something else because Magic Hat Brewing (which happens to be a subsidiary of a much larger company with lots of lawyers) has a beer called "#9" and seems to feel that they own the use of the number "9" in all beer names.

2. This one actually went to court. Ravenwood Winery sued Black Raven Brewery (yes, brewery, not winery) over their use of the word "raven" in the company's name. Ravenwood won and Black Raven appealed and lost their appeal. Two years of litigation and the courts basically ruled that Ravenwood owns the use of the word "raven" for alcohol companies.

 

[Zal42]

There I am going to have to disagree with you. One letter is still plenty of room to make a pretty solid trademark infringement case. Much less worthy cases than this have been won. Here are two recent ones that spring to mind in the world of alcohol.

Of course, nothing is sure, but one of the requirements of trademark infringement is that the products are in the same business, as your examples are. I can call my shopping mall "Camel" without fear.

An argument can be made, I suppose, that juice makers and cigarette makers are in the same business, but I think in the end it would fail. Of course, that leads back to my first point -- could they defend themselves without going broke? You're right, probably not.

Regardless of that, I think it's clearly not trademark infringement.

 

[Zal42]

Just for fun, I looked up the actual trademark filing. it appears that the trademark "Camel" applies to the combination of the word with the graphic of a camel. I don't see anything for the word alone. If vendors avoided using a picture of a camel in conjuction with using "Kamel," and for good measure didn't use the Camel font, they'd probably have a reasonable shot at defending themselves.