First of all, one of your answers is slightly incorrect. While images can be registered as a trademark or service mark (i.e. The members of KISS' makeup designs, or the image or likeness of Elvis Presley), photographic images are protected under copyright laws.
Most often, logos are the things that are trademarked. These logos can contain words or symbols that are identified with that company. The words themselves, however are public domain.
Example: Coca-Cola has the current record for successful trademark infringement lawsuits. I can name my new soft drink Star-Cola as long as my logo is not red & white and/or resemble the Coca-Cola script lettering. I can also have a Coca-Candy Bar. But I cannot have a Koko-Kola soft drink.
In the case of Kentucky and KFC. KFC could have probably successfully argued that the name Kentucky was public domain and could not be registered as a trademark even for a commonwealth.
So, to FINALLY answer your question....
It depends on the city.
San Diego is a unique name widely known as a city therefore should be public domain since it is funded by the public. However, as a municipal territory, they have a right to register a logo and/or the name of the city with the US trademark office.
Ocean Beach is an entirely different story. While Ocean Beach, CA is a specific and unique place, an "ocean beach" could be anywhere therefore public domain.
The great thing about these laws is that they have so many exceptions, a clever person can always find a way to get the result they are looking for.
In your case I would go ahead and design the t-shirts. No one can stop you from designing anything. That part is free artistic expression. Then register the designs with the US Trademark office for the purposes of t-shirt sales. If someone (including the city) already has a registration on the name or design then the Trademark office will simply reject your claim and you have your answer. However, you may end up with a profitable trademark for San Diego. Wouldn't that be cool? Your results will be different from city to city but it just might be worth your time.
Good question.
2007-11-01 08:13:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lordd Virgil 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
a million. Emerson Brooks 2. Oliver Madison 3. Camilla Savannah 4. Harrison Thomas 5. Lincoln Taylor 6. Jackson Wright Emerson, Oliver, Camilla, Harrison, Lincoln and Jackson - Ella :)
2016-10-03 02:44:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not sure about this. I read about how Kentucky trademarked its name. If a state can do it, then I do not see why a city could not do it.
This is the article and it discusses why Kentucky Fried Chicken now goes by KFC.
http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.htm
2007-11-01 07:37:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by A.Mercer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
IMAGES may be trademarked. City names aren't.
2007-11-01 07:34:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by wizjp 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
why not offer the city a part of the proceeds to permit your use? that way you can advertise that part of the $$ is going to the city...
2007-11-01 07:39:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Larry W 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes, that's a good point
2016-07-30 06:20:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Never gave too much thought about this
2016-09-20 07:52:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends
2016-08-26 05:10:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋