Question

Hillward Bakers Inc. has been using a logo with the letters"HB-in blue color and a baker's hat above these letters since its inception ten years ago. This logo has since been connected with Hillward Bakery by its customers. Hobert Bakers Inc., a newly opened bakery and confectionary chain, uses the same logo. Hillward has not registered its logo, but chooses to sue Hobert. Which of the following is true of this case?
A. Hillward cannot sue Hobert since the logo has not been registered as a trademark
B. Hillward can sue Hobert since the logo has been used by Hillward and is associated with it.
C. Hobert can defend that Hillward created something that lacks utility and cannot be trademarked
D. Hobert can defend that Hillward created something that was very obvious.
E. Hillward cannot sue Hobert because logos cannot be patented or trademarked.

Answer 1

Answer:

B) Hillward can sue Hobert since the logo has been used by Hillward and is associated with it.

Explanation:

Since Hillwards logo is an elaborate piece of creative art, then they can sue Hobert for using their logo since it was associated directly to them during the past decade. Common logos are not usually protected by copyright unless they show significant creative artwork done.

It is always better and easier to protect a logo when it is a registered trademark but even if you haven't registered it you can still sue and win for infringement. When a company uses a logo, especially for a long time, it is establishing common law trademark rights.