DOB Receives Sincerest Form of Flattery
And here we thought the great of era of misleading real estate offers was behind us! We were a little taken aback when we received this official-looking letter from someone interested in paying “top dollar” for our house last week. Why does this letterhead look so familiar, we wondered? (You can click on either image…
And here we thought the great of era of misleading real estate offers was behind us! We were a little taken aback when we received this official-looking letter from someone interested in paying “top dollar” for our house last week. Why does this letterhead look so familiar, we wondered? (You can click on either image to see a larger version.) Then we made the connection. We wonder how the Department of Buildings, which has recently updated its logo, is going to feel about the similarity. The folks at Plan NYC might not be too thrilled about the name either. Any IP lawyers out there?
Could there be confusion in the suggestion of an imprimateur? Housing regulator v. buying housing?
I think ISNH has this covered, so I’ll only add that I’d wager that both these clowns and the shady mortgage brokers have heavily lawyered what they send out. The small-print disclaimers must be sufficient to avoid liability for fraud (though I’ve not researched the issue — it’s only an educated guess).
confusingly similar:
in the law of trademarks, when a trademark, logo or business name is so close to that of a pre-existing trademark, logo or name that the public might misidentify the new one with the old trademark, logo or name. Such confusion may not be found if the products or businesses are clearly not in the actual or potential product markets or geographic area of the other.
—–
The DOB is not in the business of buying up folks’ homes so the fact that the logos are similar may not meet the “confusing” test here.
When I was general counsel for a telecom company, we got a cease and desist letter from a company with the same name and similar logo. We avoided any trouble in court because we showed that we were not in the same line of business they were in and thus no real confusion existed.
would a “reasonably prudent” consumer likely be confused by the use?
DIBS was. But I don’t think he’s prudent. Seems more of a risk-taker.
And the logo similarity only becomes an issue if the NYC DOB bothers to trademark it and enforce its exclusive use. If they do in fact have it trademarked, they could try sending a cease and desist warning letter, but somehow I doubt they’ve bothered to do so. I could be wrong though.
The legal definition of “confusing” in this instance is not what you normally think of in terms of “confusing.”
I also get very official looking “Notices” from shady mortgage brokers that looks to like it comes from the FEDS saying that my home qualifies for re-financing under the economic recovery act.
In those cases the notice does not even refer to the company it is really from and references mortgage info that is public record as if it is really from the government. I think a lot of people probably fall for that as well.
I’d’ve gone into total brain-freeze just glimpsing that & assuming it was a violation.
Yes, its’s very misleading.