[aspidistra]

"We are in no way affiliated to the discontinued Google Knol."

Google trademarked Knol back in the day (2007). A USPTO search shows it is still live:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:9wz...

Electronic publishing services, namely, publication of text and graphic works of others in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge; providing education, entertainment and information services, namely, providing information via the Internet in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge.

[saurik]

I will also point out that one does not need a registered trademark to have trademark rights in many countries, and this is certainly the case in the US: the issue is that trademarks are a protection not just for the owner, but almost more primarily for potential consumers; it is effectively a protection against people using familiarity and naming to confuse users into affiliations that don't exist. The concept of a trademark then only requires demonstrating that in your field (as trademarks are always scope limited: if one came across a laundry-mat named Knol it would not be the same issue) the name carries expectation: that people would recognize it and associate it with a specific party.

It also must be stressed that it is not sufficient to have a disclaimer: the user even getting to your website to even see the disclaimer is effectively already under false pretenses, and not everyone reads those messages anyway. If anything, that you feel the need to have such a disclaimer is good evidence that people are, in fact, being confused by your naming. I, for a concrete example, am only on this comment thread because "oh, I remember Knol... I am surprised they are trying to reboot/revitalize that project", and would have read a ton of these comments under that vague premise had it not been for this top one making it clear "no, this is not Knol". This is just such an egregious example of what you can't do with identity :(.

[jevin]

That's really helpful. Thanks. Sounds like we'll have to check this issue in details.

[jevin]

Oh, thanks for the heads up. I wonder if this applies to us, since we're not a US based company.

[aspidistra]

IANAL, but I was also able to find Knol from Google on the UK IPO search:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU006911796

and the OHIM website, which as I understand it covers Europe-wide trademarks:

https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/006911796

But like I said, I am not a lawyer, do your own research, consult an expert etc etc...

[jevin]

Of course, I'll have that checked out! ;-)

[anigbrowl]

You don't want to pay the ton of money it will take to have that question answered by a court. Change the name - it's demoralizing and embarrassing, but way way cheaper than trademark litigation.

[konstruktor]

And there's yet another company that's spelled differently, but one could argue is phonetically identical to your URL: http://www.ca.com/us/content/integration/nolio.aspx

[jevin]

Phonetically it does sound identical. I've started documenting myself on the whole naming and trademarking aspect of online services. If I have a nice list, I'll post the links in a thread here.