3 ms·
From reading the other replies here, I don't know that it's a given that the NRA wouldn't prevail in court. In other words, they might have a case. So there's n
by sverige 10y ago
From reading the other replies here, I don't know that it's a given that the NRA wouldn't prevail in court. In other words, they might have a case. So there's no bad faith for defending their trademarks if it's debatable, is there?
- jacquesm 10y agoI'm not a judge, and I understand that it is very well possible to sue even if you know up front you have a lost case if you have deeper pockets than your opponent. But let's look at what trade-mark law is all about: it's about avoiding confusion. Do you honestly believe that there is a ground for consumer confusion here, that consumers would believe that the NRA would actually put out these statements? Given the context of the publication as well as the content of the material itself? Or could it be that the NRA figured out a way to shut down a viewpoint that clashes with their own through abuse of the law?
- lotharbot 10y agoI think you may be underestimating the stupidity of some consumers.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoHe really is despite being right for I'd say most (maybe?) of the population. Especially considering that even news sites occasionally report on Onion News stories as real news. There's also examples like this scholarly study on misperceptions among people who mortgage homes: http://www.satirewire.com/news/0106/dream.shtml http://www.satirewire.com/news/0106/dream.shtml