In short the national oil company of the Brazilian state was forbidden to use the Brazilian Flag!

I don't know anything about British trademark law. But I see nothing wrong with the court refusing to protect a later user in favor of a prior one with a valid trademark. So what? They're forced to use something OTHER than the Brazilian flag to mark their product-- which just happens to be the same product as another's with a similar mark. This is a classic trademark law: preventing customer confusion.

Hey, I'm a McDonald! Well, 1/4 anyway. My grandma was Mary Donald Huey McDonald from Glencoe.

In Nova Scotia.

But she sounded pure Scottish.

I don't know anything about British trademark law. But I see nothing wrong with the court refusing to protect a later user in favor of a prior one with a valid trademark. So what? They're forced to use something OTHER than the Brazilian flag to mark their product-- which just happens to be the same product as another's with a similar mark. This is a classic trademark law: preventing customer confusion.

What's wrong is the idea that the profit motive should override national identity. Especially when a) the national identity came first and b) the UK would go apeshit if anyone challenged their right to use the Union Jack for any purpose we wish.

What's wrong is the idea that the profit motive should override national identity

I'm markedly sceptical of the idea that the Brazilian company had something other than profit in mind. Now, the idea that a Brazilian should have first dibs on national iconography to make money? Hell, I'm the girl still mad that Mazda uses capoeira music in their ads.

But so many people that aren't even slightly Jamaican make money off our icons that I have no fight.

But the trademarks were really not similar. The Brazilian flag does not look a great deal like the BP logo. It was only the colors that were similar. And if the court was really afraid confusion was possible they could have ordered changes. But they simply forbad the use of those colors. So BP how has a excluse rights on Green and Yellow within the oil business. I'm sorry; that is insane. You do not have to go that far to prevent confusion.

Also , you want a far more aburd case. As a protest, someone has trademarked the phrase "Freedom of Expression". He hoped of course that it would be knocked down. But so far it has been upheld.

The result of not protecting a name can be seen in the case of Famous Original Ray's. There used to be one pizzeria in New York called Ray's. It was really good, and "Ray's Pizza" got to have a reputation as some of the best pizza in NY. Then some more people opened up pizzerias called Ray's. So then the original Ray's changed their sign to say "Original Ray's Pizza." But then others started saying "Famous Ray's," and "Original Ray's," and by now there hundreds of pizzerias around the city with variations on "Famous Original Ray's Pizza." So the statement "Ray's Pizza is the best pizza in New York" has no meaning anymore, because no one will have any clue which restaurant you're talking about, and someone who's told, "If you go to New York, you have to eat at Ray's," probably won't end up buying pizza at the pizzeria that actually earned the "best pizza" reputation.

But it's not Brazil that's being prevented from doing anything. It's a privately owned company that happens to be from Brazil. Quite frankly, it's refreshing to see the potential for harm to the consumer (confusion) being held above the desires of the corporation for once. [Yes, I know it's actually the other corporation actually being protected, but allow me my delusions.]

The result of not protecting a name can be seen in the case of Famous Original Ray's. There used to be one pizzeria in New York called Ray's. It was really good, and "Ray's Pizza" got to have a reputation as some of the best pizza in NY. Then some more people opened up pizzerias called Ray's. So then the original Ray's changed their sign to say "Original Ray's Pizza." But then others started saying "Famous Ray's," and "Original Ray's," and by now there hundreds of pizzerias around the city with variations on "Famous Original Ray's Pizza." So the statement "Ray's Pizza is the best pizza in New York" has no meaning anymore, because no one will have any clue which restaurant you're talking about, and someone who's told, "If you go to New York, you have to eat at Ray's," probably won't end up at the pizzeria that actually earned the "best pizza" reputation.

Boo Hoo.

What's wrong is the idea that the profit motive should override national identity. Especially when a) the national identity came first and b) the UK would go apeshit if anyone challenged their right to use the Union Jack for any purpose we wish.

Profit motive doesn't override national identity here. Brazilian oil-- a profit concern-- was prevented from identifying itself for trade in Britain using the Brazilian flag. Sure, the UK might go apeshit if Brazilian oil used the British flag for trade in Brazil-- except the UK couldn't do anything about it there. If Brazilian oil had come first, BP would have been prevented from using a confusing mark.

Let me say this again: trademark is not a right to use something. It's a right to have the government protect your use of something for trade in a particular industry. BP used a mark with particular colors in the oil trade. They got a trademark. That meant they could prevent ANYONE from using a confusingly similar mark, even if it happened to be the Brazilian goverment, and even if the Brazilian government was using their flag. They just couldn't use their flag for trademarking in the oil business.

They did not overrun Brazilian identity.

Boo Hoo.

Zoe, who are you protecting? The consumer? The business holder of the name? Other businesses?

Or Scotland?