Cond Nast Sues Dog-Fashion Magazine Dogue Over 'Vogue' Marks
A dog-fashion magazine titled “Dogue” infringed media behemoth Condé Nast’s trademarks for its famed monthly fashion magazine, “Vogue,” the company told a federal court.
Tasty Work LLC publishes Dogue, a “periodical focusing on dogs, dog fashion and celebrity dog owners,” Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., which does business as Condé Nast, said in its complaint filed Friday in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Dogue used that name to confuse consumers into thinking the publication is affiliated with the media company, the complaint said.
Dogue’s magazine cover page also features the Dogue name in a similar format as the Vogue trademark, Condé Nast wrote. “Eliminating any doubt” that the similar stylization was intentional, Dogue’s Instagram page says Dogue “is in the style of Vogue,” the company said.
Dogue’s website is also “replete” with images of newsstands with issues of Dogue placed next to Vogue magazines, Condé Nast added.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/conde-nast-sues-dog-fashion-magazine-dogue-over-vogue-marks
= new reply since forum marked as read
…multistory food pavilion in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor by the name of Sony’s. IIRC, owned and operated by a petite Filipino lady. Her name was Sony. The Sony corporation sued her and won, and she could no longer use her own name for her own very small, single location business.
A doggy daycare where we live briefly went by the name Starbarks. I thought it was very clever. Same story - Starbucks sued and won.
Corporate wusses! Did the gigantic Sony corporation really feel threatened by a little food vending business, or gigantic Starbucks by a single doggy daycare location? If either of those small businesses had been offering the same products as the corporations, maybe I could see it, but c’mon, man. 
My understanding of the trademark law, as an owner of several trademarks, is that once the owner becomes aware of someone using the trademark, it is my responsibility to protect the trademark. If I do not defend the trademark against everybody, I can’t defend the trademark against anybody. My obligations as the owner is to 1) use the mark (and be able to show documented examples of continual use) and 2) defend it.
This is why you see all these mom’n’pop operations getting letters about infringement. It’s also why you see major corporations like P&G or Coke or L’Oreal suing their distributors like Costco or Walmart over store brand packaging. If Coke lets Walmart of Safeway put their store brand cola into a specifically color red can with script writing and a capital “C” for cola that waves the length of the can under the work cola…they’re gonna get a letter and maybe a lawsuit if they ignore the letter. Seems weird to sue your biggest customer but it happens all the time for the same reason Starbarks or Sony’s get a letter. The law makes not accommodation for little guys infringing.
And if Coke doesn’t defend it against Walmart today…next week, when Pepsi puts their color in a package like that and Coke DOES sue Pepsi…Pepsi’s defense is ‘but they let Walmart do it”….and that’s how former trademarks like refrigerator, aspirin, escalator, and AppStore became generic. It’s also why you hear the phrases “Kleenex BRAND tissues” or “Xerox BRAND copies”…these guys are trying make sure their trademarks don’t become generic through use as a general noun or very.
IANAL but have been schooled on this one (a lot) about my responsibilities as an owner.
