Legal minds: Can the words "lease to own" be trademarked? - Posted by Russ Sims

Posted by Rick V on April 08, 1999 at 24:16:39:

You are correct. What I meant was that although the lease is a binding contract for both parties, the option is only binding on the seller. The buyer can walk away from the option at the end of the lease without any liability for not purchasing the property.

Legal minds: Can the words “lease to own” be trademarked? - Posted by Russ Sims

Posted by Russ Sims on April 06, 1999 at 16:27:17:

This kind of threw me for a loop. I have a L/O currently advertised as a “lease to own”. Well, today I get a call from a manufactured home company in a nearby town saying that they’ve trademarked the term “lease to own” with my Secretary of State (WA). I must suspend the usage of the term or face a lawsuit. Well, I suppose you can trademark near anything, but I think “lease to own” most accurately describes my intentions, and I feel that I have the right to excercise free speech. I’ve previously tried lease/option but in my unsophisticated town, many folks don’t understand what I mean. “Rent to own” is somewhat misleading because I want to set up a lease, not a monthly rent. Using “Lease to own” has brought in the most responses to my ad, by far. Guess that’s why this company wanted to trademark it! Anyone with ideas on how to get around this (and yes, I will contact my Sec. of State to make sure they are not lying)? Many thanks!

Re: Trade Name vs. Trademark - Posted by Stacy (AZ)

Posted by Stacy (AZ) on April 07, 1999 at 12:40:49:

I think you may be dealing with a trade name issue, not a trademark issue. For example, if I opened a bar and called it “Dew Drop Inn”, and there was already a bar with that name in my city, I would have to change the name…probably “Do Drop In” would suffice. However, if there was another “Dew Drop Inn” in a town 500 miles away, I could use reuse the name locally.

Might want to get this clarified in your case.

Stacy

US Patent and Trademark Office - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on April 07, 1999 at 10:54:24:

One quick call should resolve this of course…but I thought the US Patent and Trademark Office issued trademarks…not the Secretary of State. Keep in mind my knowledge on this subject is nill.

JPiper

Re: Legal minds: Can the words “lease to own” be trademarked? - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on April 07, 1999 at 10:08:45:

Not a 100%, but also believe a trademark has to have more to it than just the words, has to be very specific. As Coca Cola, they have certain typestyles, angles of the wording, and the specific color red. So even if your not using the words Coca Cola and it can be taken as Infringing on their trademark (the intent of using their advertisng to make you money) you could violate their trademark. I would figure Lease to Own would be way to common place to trademark because of general public use. If Not, look specifically to how they word it. I think the Lease 2 Own works looks good and would use less ad space. You can though go down to your library and research it.

David Alexander

Re: Legal minds: Can the words “lease to own” be trademarked? - Posted by Rick Vesole

Posted by Rick Vesole on April 06, 1999 at 18:49:29:

This is not my area of expertise, but it is my understanding that you cannot trademark words that are in common usage. I don’t know if Lease to Own would be considered common usage, but it seems pretty common to me.

The words “Rent” and “Lease” are interchangeable, so I don’t understand why you think “Rent to Own” means anything different from “Lease to Own”. I recommend that you use the term “Rent to Own” because it is more clearly understandable by the public, who are more familiar with that phrase than “Lease to Own”.

Re: Legal minds: Can the words - Posted by JohnK(CA)

Posted by JohnK(CA) on April 06, 1999 at 18:00:12:

Russ,
I would be VERY surprised if “Lease to Own” could be the private slogan of any one company. Check it out. I’ll bet they are “Bull shiping” you. If they can trademark a term like that, I’m going to snag “FSBO” and “For sale by owner” HEHEHE.
Since you are in Wash. State I would like to hear What Joe Kaiser has to say about this.
Good Luck
JohnK(CA)

Re: Legal minds: Can the words - Posted by Jim IL

Posted by Jim IL on April 06, 1999 at 17:37:07:

Just try rewording somewhat like that.
Perhaps,
“Lease til you own”,
“Lease then own”,
“Lease 2 Own”,
“YOU may Lease to Own, my home”
“Lease to Buy”…
or something…

Just my tired idea for the day.
sorry if it seems silly, but I’ve had a long day.
Good thing they did not call me like this, I’d have hung up on em!
So, if I put an ad in the paper that says, “Used Sears Refrigerator”, I am violating “SEARS” copyright?
Sounds kinda fishy to me!
PLEASE let us all know what you find out from your Sec State.

I’m surly, as you can see,
Jim

Re: Legal minds: Can the words “lease to own” be trademarked? - Posted by Craig

Posted by Craig on April 07, 1999 at 09:52:03:

Did you know the phrase “Let’s get ready to rumble” is trademarked. I think only because it is the life blood of the owners talent. If you did try to trade mark the phrase it would not pay off. Because the phrase “lease to own” does not make you money. No one is going to pay you to use that phrase. It’s has no commercial appeal in and by itself. If you were using it in some way that paid you directly for it’s usage alone then you might succeed at getting the trademark. But your usage of it is general as to what actions you make money with and alone as a phrase does not make money.

Mmmmm, I don’t think so. - Posted by Michael Murray

Posted by Michael Murray on April 06, 1999 at 21:21:31:

Actually, Rick most dictionaries will disagree with you. Mine says rent is receiving regular payments for the use of someting of value, whereas, a lease is a CONTRACT to receive payments for use during a specified length of time. “Rent” to own suggests a pretty loose arrangement where someone can walk away without much trouble. But, “Lease” is stronger and lets people know that they must perform or the consequences will be much less fun. I think Russ is right in wanting the stronger approach to a deal.
Michael Murray

Re: Mmmmm, I don’t think so. - Posted by Rick V

Posted by Rick V on April 07, 1999 at 03:02:17:

Your definitions are technically correct - A lease is the contract that they sign, but rent is what they pay under the lease. In the rental community, the terms “to Lease” and “to Rent” are commonly used to mean the same thing.

Go check a rent-to-own furniture store, you will find out that they do not have a loose arrangement at all - but instead the renter (lessee) signs a fairly detailed contract. When the general public thinks of rent-to-own, this is the kind of thing they are thinking of, not some loose arrangement in which they can walk away any time they want.

Incidentally, it is the option, not the lease that does in fact give the L/O buyer the right to walk away without liability.

P.S. My apartment and house signs say “For Rent” and my ad appears in the “Apartments for Rent” or “Houses For Rent” columns of the newspaper, but my tenants do sign a “Lease.”

Re: Mmmmm, I don’t think so. - Posted by Michael Murray

Posted by Michael Murray on April 07, 1999 at 09:52:52:

Hi Rick,
I see what you are saying as to how the public perceives the usage of the two terms. One thing I am not clear on though; you said “Incidentally, it is the option, not the lease that does in fact give the L/O buyer the right to walk away without liability.” I have always thought the term “option” simply meant that the buyer had a choice to buy or not to buy, but the seller MUST sell if the buyer wants to buy. Whereas, the LEASE is the binding contract and cannot be breached without unpleasant consequences. So, the buyer can opt not buy, but is still tied to the lease and cannot simply walk away. Is that what you meant, or do I misunderstand how a L/O works?
Thanks,
Michael Murray