Trademarks in Trouble! First the Izod Crocodile, now the Polo Player. Is Nothing Sacred?

So the U.S. Polo Association can continue to use a polo player logo on their apparel despite lawsuits from Ralph Lauren going back to the 1980s. Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a previous ruling in favor of the U.S. Polo Association. Does this mean trouble for other brands? Yes, Sir! Consider: In January, a team of dentists in Cheltenham, UK who used a crocodile as a logo won the trademark infringement suit brought by Izod. The dentists said, "We chose a crocodile as our logo simply because of the animal's association with a lot of teeth, nothing to do with Lacoste."

Who next? Well Gucci has been snapped at by New York City's Empire State Development Corporation for using the heart New York phrase on their limited-edition Gucci hearts New York bags.

Watch as next Steiff and the Baby Gap duel it out over the teddy bear used on the Gap children's line. Or as Tommy Hilfiger decides to take the U.S. Armed Forces for using the American flag.

I always thought those ads that Chanel took out in Women's Wear Daily explaining the correct and incorrect use of the phrase "Chanel jacket" were a bit absurd. If I write that Louis Vuitton was showing "little Chanel jackets," isn't that a compliment to Chanel by raising the jacket to icon status? Are readers really going to think that Chanel and Vuitton have joined forces? Or are they perhaps they would prefer that Chanel went the way of Kleenex and had a little TM after the word every time it appeared. In fact, I think I see a fabulous pair of earrings in the making. On one side CC, on the other TM.