Hashtag with Care

Get Legal Help Today

 Secured with SHA-256 Encryption

Jeffrey Johnson is a legal writer with a focus on personal injury. He has worked on personal injury and sovereign immunity litigation in addition to experience in family, estate, and criminal law. He earned a J.D. from the University of Baltimore and has worked in legal offices and non-profits in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina. He has also earned an MFA in screenwriting from Chapman Univer...

Full Bio →

Written by

UPDATED: Jun 5, 2016

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.

HashtagHashtags (the “#” symbol) are used across social media to make it easier for users to identify and find posts on a specific topic.

The hashtag can also be used ironically and self-mockingly, as with #firstworldproblems.

The symbol (also known as the pound sign or number sign) has been around since at least 1850. It’s been used to flag topics on Twitter since 2007 and the word “hashtag” was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2014.

The hashtag symbol is just a form of punctuation, like a comma or question mark, and as such isn’t protected as anyone’s intellectual property.

However, using a hashtag improperly can get you sued for trademark infringement, as several recent cases illustrate.

Likelihood of Confusion

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examines applications for federal registration of trademarks and decides whether or not to grant them. One common reason for refusing a registration is a “likelihood of confusion” between the applicant’s mark and a mark that already exists.

“Likelihood of confusion” exists when marks are similar AND the goods or services they’re used with are so related that consumers could mistakenly believe they came from the same source.

Marks don’t have to be identical to be confusing. Marks might sound alike, be visually similar, or create the same general impression.

Trademarks are registered for specific “classes” of goods and services, for example Apparel, Beds, Bridges, Undertaking, Cutlery, and Nanotechnology. There are hundreds of these classes.

The trademark STURDEE when used for a type of bed wouldn’t necessarily be confused with STURDEE when used for a type of bridge, for example.

However, the mark TOPPER when used for coats might be confused with TOPPER used for hats, because hats and coats are closely related.

Polaroid

The same principles apply when one business is suing another for trademark infringement.
Courts often apply factors derived from the 1961 case of Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp.:

  • How strong the plaintiff’s trademark is
  • How similar the marks are
  • How similar the goods or services are
  • The likelihood that the plaintiff will “bridge the gap” and expand into the defendant’s product area
  • The defendant’s intent in adopting the mark
  • Evidence of actual consumer confusion
  • Buyer sophistication
  • Quality of the defendant’s products (the lower the quality, the greater the harm)

Public Impact

In a Massachusetts case (Pub. Impact, LLC v. Boston Consulting Grp., Inc.), the court found that the use of the defendant’s Twitter handle “@4PublicImpact” and hashtag #publicimpact created a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff’s registered trademark “PUBLIC IMPACT.”

The court noted the fact that the plaintiff and defendant were competitors made it even more likely that consumers would be confused.

Fraternity Collection

In a Mississippi case (Fraternity Collection, LLC v. Fargnoli), Fraternity Collection, a company that designed and manufactured clothing sued one of its designers when she began selling her designs to a competitor. The designer used the hashtags “#fratcollection” and “#fraternitycollection” in her social media accounts.

The court found that the company stated a cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act (which governs trademarks), saying that “hashtagging a competitor’s name or product in social media posts could, in certain circumstances, deceive consumers.” 

Hashtag with Care

To reduce the risk of being sued for trademark infringement, it’s a good idea to avoid the use of your competitors’ trademarks in hashtags for social media posts promoting your own goods and services.

Get Legal Help Today

Find the right lawyer for your legal issue.

 Secured with SHA-256 Encryption