3 ms·

I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that FA designed their own "take" on the docker icon, which is different than the one docker uses. Your rights to m

by phonon 11y ago

I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that FA designed their own "take" on the docker icon, which is different than the one docker uses. Your rights to manipulate someone else's trademarked logo are much more limited.

meesterdude 11y ago
you might be right, but there is a lot of creativity out there surrounding logo manipulation. i've seen many variations of twitter, facebook, etc; to fit a given design. IANAL, but if i was running a company and people were using their own takes on my logo to reference my product, I would be flattered more than anything. If they were using it as their own, I would certainly have a problem with that. I was under the impression that it was the latter that companies would need to go after in trademark abuse. Going after the former feels... needlessly abrassive, and can turn off formerly hard-won, die-hard users.
- phonon 11y ago
  All those companies have very strict branding guidelines actually. I ran into this when designing a site for a corporate customer, we had to follow all the branding/logo guidelines in the little social "connect to us" section. https://about.twitter.com/company/brand-assets https://about.twitter.com/company/brand-assets https://www.facebookbrand.com/dos-donts https://www.facebookbrand.com/dos-donts https://brand.linkedin.com/policies https://brand.linkedin.com/policies https://developers.google.com/+/branding-guidelines?hl=en https://developers.google.com/+/branding-guidelines?hl=en etc.
- phonon 11y ago
  Also, open source groups protect their logos just as strongly. E.g. https://www.djangoproject.com/community/logos/ https://www.djangoproject.com/community/logos/
Someone1234 11y ago
But that's a copyright issue, not a trademark issue, and the lawyer specifically referenced trademark usage. So while that might apply in the broader sense, that isn't what they raised.
- phonon 11y ago
  Yes and no. If they had to sue, it would primarily be under copyright law. The impetus for all this though, is fear of weakening a distinctive trademark.
- phonon 11y ago
  And yeah, they would have grounds under dilution too... http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/TrademarkDilutionRecentUSCaseLawRejectsRequirementThatMarksMustBe%E2%80%9CIdentical%E2%80%9Dor%E2%80%9CSubstantiallySimilar%E2%80%9D.aspx http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/TrademarkDilutionRece... Plus some states have their own laws on trademark dilution, which may be even more restrictive. EDIT: Replying to the below-- " following list of non-exhaustive factors that courts may consider" You would need a court to actually balance the factors.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    Dilution doesn't apply. Both the original logo and the new logo are designed to recognise the same entity. It fails part V in your article: > (v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark. Since the users of the new mark are only utilising it to point to the original owner of the Trademark, dilution doesn't apply.

by phonon 11y ago

meesterdude 11y ago

you might be right, but there is a lot of creativity out there surrounding logo manipulation. i've seen many variations of twitter, facebook, etc; to fit a given design. IANAL, but if i was running a company and people were using their own takes on my logo to reference my product, I would be flattered more than anything. If they were using it as their own, I would certainly have a problem with that. I was under the impression that it was the latter that companies would need to go after in trademark abuse. Going after the former feels... needlessly abrassive, and can turn off formerly hard-won, die-hard users.

phonon 11y ago
All those companies have very strict branding guidelines actually. I ran into this when designing a site for a corporate customer, we had to follow all the branding/logo guidelines in the little social "connect to us" section. https://about.twitter.com/company/brand-assets https://about.twitter.com/company/brand-assets https://www.facebookbrand.com/dos-donts https://www.facebookbrand.com/dos-donts https://brand.linkedin.com/policies https://brand.linkedin.com/policies https://developers.google.com/+/branding-guidelines?hl=en https://developers.google.com/+/branding-guidelines?hl=en etc.
phonon 11y ago
Also, open source groups protect their logos just as strongly. E.g. https://www.djangoproject.com/community/logos/ https://www.djangoproject.com/community/logos/

Someone1234 11y ago

But that's a copyright issue, not a trademark issue, and the lawyer specifically referenced trademark usage. So while that might apply in the broader sense, that isn't what they raised.

phonon 11y ago
Yes and no. If they had to sue, it would primarily be under copyright law. The impetus for all this though, is fear of weakening a distinctive trademark.
phonon 11y ago
And yeah, they would have grounds under dilution too... http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/TrademarkDilutionRecentUSCaseLawRejectsRequirementThatMarksMustBe%E2%80%9CIdentical%E2%80%9Dor%E2%80%9CSubstantiallySimilar%E2%80%9D.aspx http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/TrademarkDilutionRece... Plus some states have their own laws on trademark dilution, which may be even more restrictive. EDIT: Replying to the below-- " following list of non-exhaustive factors that courts may consider" You would need a court to actually balance the factors.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Dilution doesn't apply. Both the original logo and the new logo are designed to recognise the same entity. It fails part V in your article: > (v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark. Since the users of the new mark are only utilising it to point to the original owner of the Trademark, dilution doesn't apply.