Is &quot;JAMMA&quot; a legally-protected term?
<p>In the 1980s, a trade association called the &quot;Japan Amusement Machine and Marketing Association&quot; created the &quot;JAMMA&quot; standard, a connector common across many arcade cabinets, allowing manufacturers to sell new games which fit existing cabinets, significantly reducuing waste as cabinets could be re-used for new games.</p>
<p>I've noticed that a lot of projects (even some commercial products) use the &quot;JAMMA&quot; term without any obvious endorsement by the trade association (e.g. <a href="https://www.retrorgb.com/jamma-rgb-pi-board.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.retrorgb.com/jamma-rgb-pi-board.html</a>).</p>
<p>Is the term &quot;JAMMA&quot; protected in any way (as I would expect it to be, given it is the namesake of a trade association), or am I free to use it to describe my own open-source projects which are designed to work with these arcade cabinets?</p>
<p>My suspicion is that it's a grey area (the name belongs to them, but they don't seem to be making any efforts to protect it) but I know very little of legal matters.</p>

<p>The mark is still protected in Japan today; the original application was Registration 1781385 (Japanese site: <a href="https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/t0100" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/t0100</a> then search for JAMMA), listed as continuing to today as well as various other versions in different typefaces.</p>
<p>However, you are welcome to use a trademark, in the US, at least, under fair use, so long as it is descriptive (describing your product's functionality), or nominative (naming their mark - for example &quot;The Chicago Bulls won today&quot; is fair use); see for example, from <a href="https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Using a geographical name (e.g., a city’s name) relating to the user’s business location, even if that name is the same as or similar to another’s mark, generally is considered fair use. The fair use exception generally permits use of descriptive terms about the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time of production of the goods or of rendering the service, main raw materials, functions, weight or other characteristics of the goods or services. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that use of another’s mark under this type of fair use is in accordance with honest commercial practices that do not suggest association with the trademark owner and that do not depreciate the value of the goodwill in the mark.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Describing your product as &quot;works with JAMMA boards&quot; might for example be fair use, while calling it a &quot;JAMMA board multiplier&quot; might be a grey area.  Ultimately, as with any trademark question, any specific use that's remotely close to questionable is potentially a matter a court would have to decide.</p>
<p>Important here, as well, is that Japan does <em>not</em> have the concept of fair use of trademarks explicitly, according to the above article, so it may be more complicated, though the article suggests they respect a similar concept.</p>

<p>Trademark protection is a national matter. A mark protected fully in Japan may have no protection at all in the US, or in France or Brazil, say. One would need to do a separate search in the country of interest.</p>
<p>In addition, in the US and in many other countries, including all of Europe, as I understand it, <strong>nominative use</strong> sometimes confusingly called &quot;fair use&quot; or &quot;nominative fair use&quot; (a different concept than &quot;fair use&quot; in copurioghm law) is not trademark infringement. In general, <strong>Nominative use</strong> is using a mark as the <em><strong>name</strong></em> om the product or service without implying any sponsorship or approval, and without implying an identity in origin. Use of a mark in a review or criticism is nominative use. Use in comparative advertising is nominative use (&quot;Our brand lasts 50% longer than Brand X.&quot;) Compatibility statements are nominative use . (&quot;This plug fits Type X sockets.&quot;) If a use cause a reasonable person to confuse the product with the original or protected source, it is not nominative use, normally.</p>
<p>I do not know if the trademark law of Japan provides for nominative use.</p>

trademark