The difference between this example and Bloodbath and Beyond (cool name, btw) is that Bed, Bath and Beyond is already an existing store which already has a trademarked name, while Roald Dahl does not have a candy company. What seems to be the common misconception regarding questions of this nature is that the questioner is confusing copyright (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) and Trademark (Wonka Candy Company) – apples vs. oranges. This is rather simplistic because I don’t want to complicate matters by mentioning Trademark dilution, paradoy, unfair competition to name a few.
I wonder if there is some rule/law that indicates how often a name is used. For exmpe , Duff and Kwik-E-Mart are constant inclusions in the Simpsons, while Ranho Relaxo was a one-offer. Does frequency of use give some sort of establishment to the rights?
Copyright and Trademark are two different animals.
Using a few words from a book doesn’t infringe the copyright, and an author can’t register an imaginary trademark because the author will not be able to prove use in commerce or intentention to use the mark in commerce. Therefore, the name will not be registrable by the author under the Lanham Act.
OTOH, it is quite possible for an advertising campaign to run afoul of copyright laws if the advertising turns out to be a derivative work of a copyrighted piece or even if the characters in the campaign are substantially similar to those in a copyrighted work. http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/chp6/kroftmcdonalds.htm
I ask myself the same question every time I pass the “Bada Bing” bar just down the street from me (Bada Bing = the strip club where the guys in The Sopranos hang out).
Ah, so Asimov came up with US Robotics first! I just saw “I, Robot”, and wondered if the modem company would sue for the use of their name.
Chickens and eggs…
I think someone above pointed out that it was “US Robots” in the books. Does USR still exist? I thought they became Palm, or was that just a spinoff? They still make modems?
I wasn’t aware of the Michigan example, but otherwise, that’s my point - people are citing USR and Wonka and saying
Yet Balthisar says (and wikipedia confirms) the Simpsons won against ‘Duff’. This is hard to reconcile. Are you saying that because the name is not trademarked (as there is no RL trade occuring), I might run Duff or Shinohara, but should my ad campagnes include a DuffMan or large robot, I may run afoul of copyright laws because of that?
I never directly addressed this question. Trademarks apply to a specific industry. Apple Records (the Beatles’ old label) could do anything about Apple Computer until the latter started selling music, at which point they won a settlement.
If you tried to open an interior decorating shop called “Bloodbath & Beyond”, I’d imagine the folks from Bed, Bath & Beyond could force you to change names. If Bloodbath & Beyond sold only knives, guns, and autographed pictures of O.J. Simpson, you wouldn’t have any problem. The similarity in the names couldn’t cause confusion in the mind of the consumer.
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, the “Wonka” trademark was originally held by the Quaker Oats Company, who actually produced the 1971 film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory as a tie-in to a Wonka-branded candy bar they were producing. The Wonka trademarks are currently held by Nestlé. This seems to show that the brand name was inspired by the film.
Thank you and everyone else for your responses
Except that the book was published in (at least) 1964, and it doesn’t look like any names were changed in re-releases.
So, basically, I could open a “Mr. Hong’s 3 Jolly Luck Take-Away” Fish Restaurant on Dagon St. and have nothing to fear (except on the Vernal Equinox, of course!) 
But before 1971, no one (in the United States at least) was marketing candy under the Willy Wonka brand name.
I think I was trying to say it was inspired by the book? I forget. Even if the RL chocolate bar name came from the movie, it would seem it was part of a marketing tie-in, which excludes it from the discussion.
Reading over this thread again, I can see now how trademark law would apply, even though the fictional business in question may not be central to the work in question. I suppose this means I can’t manufacture brooms under the ‘Nimbus’ label, though I could make marker crayons or something instead.
How about a ‘middle ground’ example - the red Swingline stapler… Swingline was a stapler company way before the movie, so I imagine making red staplers would be something they could certainly do…
Hmm. If my futuristic action-thriller movie includes a nifty looking ‘Ford’ car, can Ford introduce a similar looking car without consulting me? With the same name?
The “Duff beer” situation seems to be a special case. I found what appears to be the Australian federal court decision.
It looks to me as though the court found it very significant that Duff Beer was prominently featured in multiple episodes, and that at least one episode (“Duffless”) centered entirely on the subject of Duff beer. Also, the show’s producers had marketed merchandise, such as caps and shirts, with the “Duff Beer” logo from the show. So, right there, you’ve got your possibility of market confusion, the very thing trademark law is meant to prevent.
So, as long as the producers of The Simpsons don’t sell shirts with the “Java The Hut” logo, you could probably get away with swiping the one-shot name.
Maybe the Simpsons people wouldn’t get angry, but the Lucas people might be miffed.
Started wondering what fictional names have made it into the real world, and it reminded me to order that “Albuquerque Isotopes” t-shirt.
Go 'topes! 'Topes Rule!!!
According to the credits, an outfit nicknamed “Java the Hut” provided coffee on the set of Episodes I, II, and III.
Thread revival because it is an interesting question. Australian trademark lawyer here.
It would be misleading and deceptive contrary to the Australian Competition and Consumer Act. I understand the Lanham Act in the US works in a similar way. There would be a representation of an affiliation with, an association with, or an endorsement by the owner of the registered or unregistered mark, which was not true.
Definitely don’t take any of these in establishing your multinational: Imaginary Stocks To Buy (a musing) - World Comic Book Review I think both DC and Marvel Comics would be quite cross.
TyphoonSignal, perhaps you can help me here for a percentage?
If I set up my own ACME Corporation, could I injunct Warner Bros to stop playing Roadrunner cartoons?
The performance of their fictitious products [granted, in the hands of a completely untrained and inappropriate operator] will create a strong negative perception to anything I would ever want to put on the market.
Robot itself is a good example of the evolutionary process. Robot was a word coined from a Czech term for compulsory labor, by Karel Capek in a 1920 sci-fi play. It quickly moved into the general vocabulary, and 20 years later, Isaac Asimov created “robotics” as a technological process of designing and creating robots… Neither Robot nor Robotics has been challenged as a common noun in English.
So “robotics” is a generic term for a technological process, just like “dry cleaning” or “printing”, and are not restricted in any way from being used within trade names, like US Robotics, or US Dry Cleaning.