I saw one of these shirts for the first time last week. So ugly with the "i" added on.
TiredBear;842127723 said:
Regretably, that is in no way an infringement.
A court would almost certainly view it as trademark infringement under the prevailing "liklihood of confusion" standard.
Here's a treatise excerpt: To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).
I'm not going to do a full analysis, but the hardest element to prove would probably be #2, but a good expert/consultant could drum up evidence of confusion fairly easily. The rest are basically slam dunks.
I agree with whoever said that Cal's lawyers are either already on this, or will be soon.
