> If I created a drink called Coca-Colada, I'd probably have a legitimate grievance if someone claimed I was ripping off Coca-Cola.

Not if you used their logo verbatim in yours. Look at the screenshot TechCrunch features: http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/flickraf...

> Or how about a bowl to wash off coca plants, marketed as a Coca Collander? Are they still going to sue me into oblivion?

Again, if you used their logo, probably. A collander isn't in direct competition with a soft drink, though, so it's a pretty poor analogy.

That isn't the Flickr logo verbatim.

Artistically---its not even the same font, nor the same colors (not all blues and light pinks are created equal).

It's apparent just by glancing at it that its not the same thing. Any argument that it'll create confusion in the marketplace is null. Even the nature of the service further differenciates FlickRaft from Flickr.

Did you really look at FlickRaft, and think "gracious, Flickr want's me to move from their servers to Snapjoy!"

Do you think anyone ever could?

If there's no problem there, then there's no trademark violation. All that's left is calling this a copyright issue.

However with a word logo, there's only 4 points to its artwork:

1. The actual words (Different in the case of FlickRaft)

2. The font (also different)

3. The color combination (reminiscent but actually different)

4. The pattern (there's just two colors, a protectable pattern this does not make).

Even with a completely original logo, Coca-Colada would be a clear violation of trademark law. Similar names within the same industry will generally be deemed to cause confusion, which is what trademark law intends to prevent.