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?

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.

Show me the case, because there's no possible way you're right here.

Shawn, I love it when you get all lawyer-y.

You are going to kick so much courtroom ass.

That meant they could prevent ANYONE from using a confusingly similar mark, even if it happened to be the Brazilian goverment,

Says who? Why shouldn't the Brazilians stick their finger up at UK trademark law and pass a law saying it is fine for any Brazilian oil co. to use the Brazilian flag anytime it likes.

Says who? Why shouldn't the Brazilians stick their finger up at UK trademark law and pass a law saying it is fine for any Brazilian oil co. to use the Brazilian flag anytime it likes.

They can. JUST NOT IN ENGLAND.

Boo Hoo.

Why? The guy who built up his business and reputation loses out, because people hear of his reputation but then go elsewhere. The consumer loses out, because they go expecting great pizza and end up with merely adequate pizza. Eventually, every other Famous Original Ray's loses out, because the name came to mean nothing but "cliched New York pizzeria" and doesn't signify quality anymore.

Boo Hoo.

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

Or Scotland?

The fate of any one pizza company is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether they make good pizzas or not.

I believe it could use the Braziliam flag in Brazil, just not in England, where it might be confusing. Now the restaurant named Oscar's in my town is probably not going to get confused with, you know, the ceremoney and the little statue in Hollywood, but there was never an actual law-suit, they caved because they were one little restaurant in wester New York.

Er just to clarify. Petrobras is not a private company. (Well this days it is half private.) Petrobras is owned by the Brazilian state.

But I'm not opposing trademark. Ray's is an example of why a modest trademark law is worthwhile. (Though I note that Ray's is also an example fo why the innovators that most need it will often neglect to use it.) I just want a little sanity and commonsense applied. The only valid purpose of legal protection of a trademark is to prevent confusion. Any reasonable accomdation that can be allowed to let somebody else use the trademark they want, but still clearly avoid confusion should be made. And both trademark and copyright should be viewed as legal protections - not property rights. That would tend to lead to their being enforced in the least rather than most restrictive ways.