Can infringement of a trademark be pursued for using a company&#39;s name in a sentence?
<p>If I have a sentence on my business website stating something similar to </p>

<p>"Mr. Smith participated in the process that ended with Pepsi acquiring Silly Sally's Sodas" </p>

<p>Is this a basis for infringement on Pepsi or SSS? No logos or other graphics used, just a plain statement of fact.</p>

<p>Can Pepsi or SSS sue for trademark infringement?</p>

<p>The example in the question is a pretty clear case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use" rel="noreferrer"><em>nominative use</em></a>. The mark is being used to refer to, or <strong>name</strong>, the product (or service). It is not being used to sell a similar product, or anything else. No reasonable person could take it to indicate that the trademark owner has endorsed the person making the statement, nor that there is any sort of affiliation. </p>

<p><a href="https://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/Fair-Use-of-TrademarksNL.aspx" rel="noreferrer">This page</a> from the International Trademark Association describes the concept. </p>

<p>This concept is sometimes called "fair use" by analogy with the concept in US copyright law, but that term is not strictly accurate. It is better to simply say "nominative use" or "descriptive use". </p>

<p>Digital Media Law's page on <a href="http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others" rel="noreferrer">"Using the trademarks of others"</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As a general matter, if you are reporting on, commenting on, or criticizing a trademark owner, most ordinary consumers will not be confused about whether the company or organization is the source or sponsor of your work. You can reduce the likelihood of confusion further by avoiding a website design that looks like the trademark owner's site or resembles its product packaging, and you should never festoon your website with a company's logo (but isolated use when relevant to a discussion is OK)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If someone threatens you with a lawsuit or sues you for trademark dilution, then a lack of consumer confusion will not help you. Here, one obvious line of defense is to argue that there is no likelihood of dilution. Federal and state dilution law protects a trademark owner against the whittling away of the distinctiveness of its famous trademark by association with other goods or services; it does not give a trademark owner the right to shut down all unflattering speech about it. If you do not associate a famous trademark with your own goods or services, then there can be no dilution (or at least that's how your argument goes). </p>
</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The nominative fair use defense protects your ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. Courts impose three requirements on defendants who want to take advantage of the nominative fair use defense: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service in question must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This defense works against trademark infringement lawsuits. The federal dilution statute, found at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), also makes nominative fair use a complete defense to trademark dilution claims. </p>
</blockquote>

copyright trademark