6 ms·

Humourless maybe, but if North Face didn't exist, the guy wouldn't be making money right now. I don't see a problem with being satirical, but surely after maki

Humourless maybe, but if North Face didn't exist, the guy wouldn't be making money right now. I don't see a problem with being satirical, but surely after making $5,000 and receiving the notice from North Face you should be prepared to stop trading?

markpercival 17y ago
Why, if he can prove he's not infringing on their trademark, he should absolutely continue to make money selling his merchandise. If IBM didn't exist you probably wouldn't have Microsoft - doesn't mean they shouldn't compete with each other.
- mootothemax 17y ago
  If he can prove he's not infringing on their trademark, it'll be a sad day for every entrepreneur out there. Actually, no, I'm wrong, scratch that. What I meant to say was: it'll be a sad day for every entrepreneur without Chinese contacts.
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    Really? The test is whether he's diluting the value of North Face's trademark. I think a court could reasonably decide he's not. There's a long and golden history of people creating satirical products that are meant to poke fun at trademarks.
    - raganwald 17y ago
      One of the tests is whether he's diluting North Face's trademark. The other is whether he's damaging it. Freedom to satirize is not the same thing as freedom to create a satirical product. There is a long history of such products, but that does not guarantee a defense.
      - Goladus 17y ago
        Yeah I think if this logo had appeared in a Simpsons Episode or on Penny-Arcade it would clearly not be infringement. The fact that he's selling clothes changes things.
        rosser 17y ago
        Exactly. Parodic or otherwise, he's using his riff on TNF's trademarks for commercial purposes. That seems to be the most important detail, in terms of how suits and rulings have trended, in my (admittedly brief) digging into the topic.
      - mrkurt 17y ago
        Trademark tarnishment is a kind of dilution (the other being blurring). In this case, I think it will be hard to argue tarnishment and easier to argue blurring. The real point I was trying to make, though, is that a court might find in his favor, and it wouldn't really be "a sad day for every entrepreneur without Chinese contacts". It would be a reasonable decision. Finding against them might also be a reasonable decision, though I'm prone to want to protect satire as much as possible. :)
philk 17y ago
>> but surely after making $5,000 and receiving the notice from North Face you should be prepared to stop trading It's somewhat puzzling to see this opinion posted on a news site that caters to entrepreneurs.
- mootothemax 17y ago
  Isn't a valuable part of being an entrepreneur knowing when to quit?
  - philk 17y ago
    I'm not sure that "when you've just received a huge amount of free publicity" constitutes a good time to quit.
    - mootothemax 17y ago
      When that free publicity carries continued lawyers fees, I'd beg to differ.
      - philk 17y ago
        He is a 19 year old college student; hence his downside risk is fairly limited. On the other hand, he's received global coverage and now has the potential to make a substantial amount of cash. There's also the real possibility that negative publicity will force the North Face to back down.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      No - but it might be a clever time to change the logo, make money off the back of the publicity and side step the litigation.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        I'd milk it for what it's worth before doing that. The time to quit is when the cost starts to outweigh the benefits, in this case that time may not have arrived (yet).
cabalamat 17y ago
> surely after making $5,000 and receiving the notice from North Face you should be prepared to stop trading? Why? If people are continuing to buy their stuff, they are obviously making things people want.

markpercival 17y ago

Why, if he can prove he's not infringing on their trademark, he should absolutely continue to make money selling his merchandise. If IBM didn't exist you probably wouldn't have Microsoft - doesn't mean they shouldn't compete with each other.

mootothemax 17y ago
If he can prove he's not infringing on their trademark, it'll be a sad day for every entrepreneur out there. Actually, no, I'm wrong, scratch that. What I meant to say was: it'll be a sad day for every entrepreneur without Chinese contacts.
- mrkurt 17y ago
  Really? The test is whether he's diluting the value of North Face's trademark. I think a court could reasonably decide he's not. There's a long and golden history of people creating satirical products that are meant to poke fun at trademarks.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    One of the tests is whether he's diluting North Face's trademark. The other is whether he's damaging it. Freedom to satirize is not the same thing as freedom to create a satirical product. There is a long history of such products, but that does not guarantee a defense.
    - Goladus 17y ago
      Yeah I think if this logo had appeared in a Simpsons Episode or on Penny-Arcade it would clearly not be infringement. The fact that he's selling clothes changes things.
      - rosser 17y ago
        Exactly. Parodic or otherwise, he's using his riff on TNF's trademarks for commercial purposes. That seems to be the most important detail, in terms of how suits and rulings have trended, in my (admittedly brief) digging into the topic.
    - mrkurt 17y ago
      Trademark tarnishment is a kind of dilution (the other being blurring). In this case, I think it will be hard to argue tarnishment and easier to argue blurring. The real point I was trying to make, though, is that a court might find in his favor, and it wouldn't really be "a sad day for every entrepreneur without Chinese contacts". It would be a reasonable decision. Finding against them might also be a reasonable decision, though I'm prone to want to protect satire as much as possible. :)

philk 17y ago

>> but surely after making $5,000 and receiving the notice from North Face you should be prepared to stop trading It's somewhat puzzling to see this opinion posted on a news site that caters to entrepreneurs.

mootothemax 17y ago
Isn't a valuable part of being an entrepreneur knowing when to quit?
- philk 17y ago
  I'm not sure that "when you've just received a huge amount of free publicity" constitutes a good time to quit.
  - mootothemax 17y ago
    When that free publicity carries continued lawyers fees, I'd beg to differ.
    - philk 17y ago
      He is a 19 year old college student; hence his downside risk is fairly limited. On the other hand, he's received global coverage and now has the potential to make a substantial amount of cash. There's also the real possibility that negative publicity will force the North Face to back down.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    No - but it might be a clever time to change the logo, make money off the back of the publicity and side step the litigation.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      I'd milk it for what it's worth before doing that. The time to quit is when the cost starts to outweigh the benefits, in this case that time may not have arrived (yet).

cabalamat 17y ago

> surely after making $5,000 and receiving the notice from North Face you should be prepared to stop trading? Why? If people are continuing to buy their stuff, they are obviously making things people want.