> Did they really trademark Sprite™?

Probably.

> Doesn't Coca Cola own that?

Within a particular domain. Trademarks do not cover all possible commercial uses of a mark.

Trademarks are industry-scoped.

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trademark_la...

> Did they really trademark Sprite™?

No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM.

> Doesn't Coca Cola own that?

Yes, and under modern trademark law, Coca-Cola will be contacting/threatening them shortly, so you can expect a project name change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act

> > Did they really trademark Sprite™?

> No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM.

The circle-R is for a registered trademark. Something can be claimed as (and protected as) a trademark -- and thus, trademarked -- without also being a registered trademark.

Precisely! Also When I first saw the post in hn. I immediately thought like a game graphic sprite. Not even the soda.

As mentioned by others, that's not how trademark law works. Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace. I'd bet you $1000 on longbets.org that KO do not cause this company to change the name of their toy drone company.

My understanding of law leaves lots to be desired, but wouldn't the trial, even if they won, be way too expensive? And there is always the risk of losing, Coca-Cola can certainly afford better lawyers.

If I would be a startup I would love that kind of publicity.

Sure, as long as you can convert said publicity into money faster than you the lawsuit drains you.

> Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace

This drone does look like a 2-liter [Sprite] bottle though :)

You didn't even click the link I provided, did you?

coca cola will contact them, but that won't necessaruily result in a chage. As pointed out, drones are a distinct market from sugary drinks, sot he likelihood of consumer confusion is low. It's true that Coke's legal department will write a grumpy letter anyway, in order to create a legal record of actively defending their existing mark, which can be raised in court if they are ever confronted with a genuine infringer.

I assume/hope the Spirte team have budgeted a few $ for the legal expenses in replying to such a letter, but agree with the poster below that the cost might well be covered by the value of free publicity over a trademark dispute. I hope that's not a deliberate strategy, as it's the sort of thing that could turn into an abusive practice.

If you had clicked the link I provided, you might come to understand that since 1995, U.S. trademark law does not just work in the way you described, but also includes the concept of "dilution", where famous marks are protected by law even though there is zero chance of consumer confusion.

You should be looking at the Trademark dilution revision act of 2006 which has superseded it. While Coke would easily get an injunction against blurring, there are counter arguments about similarity, and the lack of intentional or factual associations with the famous Sprite mark, not to mention it's lack of inherent distinctiveness (as opposed to say '7up'.) The situation is more nuanced than you suggest.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr683/summary has a good CRS-authored summary of that legislation's content.