   Trademark Violation? OWL
  Hello,In the past year, while working on my many projects, I have merged alot of my codebase for a single cross-platform, cross-enviorment windowing library (its like a super MFC, without the need for macros).  This is all well, good, and legal, till it came to naming.I have been working under the title of Omerae Interactive for the past 7 years.  As such, I planned on using this name to brand my libraries (typical practice).  Without thinking, I quickly popped up the generic name "Omerae Windowing Library" for a cross-platform cross-enviornment windowing library, or "OWL" for short.  Yea, OWL, same name as the ancent borland windowing library that everyone forgot, a discontinued line from years ago.  This was not intentional, but could be cause for legal concern as they A) Share the same abbreviation/syn.  B) Are of the same/similar branch of technology.Now, Borland stopped creating OWL a long time ago.  It is more of a generic style name, so im not quite sure if its worth the effort to change it or not.(You must understand, The process of changing the name in all my tools and help will require upwards to 20 hours of work.  (Its more then a simple find/replace)If I can avoid it its well worth it)Thanks in advance for the replies,Im not sure what I should doRichard 
  IANAL, but I believe that you can''t trademark an abbreviation. So calling your code OWL should be fine as Borland''s OWL is an abbreviation.On the other hand, you should be careful to note that your product is not the same as Borland''s OWL whenever there might be any confusion what so ever. ;  I''m not so sure about the "not being able to trademark an acronym" issue.For instance, I''m sure if anyone was using the acronym MS, MSN, MSDN etc... they would get a letter from Microsoft''s lawyers...Best to talk to someone in the know (ie lawyer).MJB ;  The thing is, BORLAND''S OWL has been out of production/use/support/everything for a LONG TIME.  The only reason they havent made it open source yet is for various legal reasons.If it was something on a completely opposite spectrum, I would think it would be ok.  But they are both windowing frameworks (though different styles/types).  Borland has no intention whatsoever of continuing the framework (it is unsupported in favor of C++Builder) ;  Well, i did a trademark search in the US database, and borland doesent have it trademarked  (MSN and all that is though).  Im going to stick with it, they are going to have a problem backing a 3 letter abbr.  (that would prolly be dead anyways) in court. ;  If Borland let the trademark die from disuse, then they don''t have a leg to stand on.  You are totally free to claim the trademark.Doesn''t mean they might not get pissy about it, but I really doubt it.  I suspect Borland wants to forget that their OWL ever existed... ;  Trademarks must be defended to be considered valid in a court of law. IANAL. 