3 ms·

This doesn't appear to be a commercial product, so there could be no trademark violation.

by jsprogrammer 10y ago

zyxley 10y ago
That's not how trademarks work.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Please explain how they work. The US government has only been given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. A downmod is not an explanation. You could post a snippet of law, for example.
  - JoBrad 10y ago
    That's a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. Some very simple searching lands you at this page, which has some helpful information about trademarks, how to pick one, and how to enforce it. Properly enforced, trademarks are a source of financial stability for entrepreneurs, and it is entirely in the realm of the US government to regulate them. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/basic-facts-about-trademarks-videos http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-ba...
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Unfortunately my current network appears to block that site. Perhaps you could paste a quote from that page that is relevant to this discussion? The argument here is that this use is non-commercial (we are also apparently arguing about a non-respondent trademark), so the financial stability of entrepreneurs is irrelevant.
      - thomasfoster96 10y ago
        Intellectual property is still intellectual property, even if a non-profit is using it. Your argument would allow any nonprofit to use the trademarks of any business in the United States, which is clearly neither good for entrepreneurs nor legal.
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        Nonprofits are typically engaged in commercial activity.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    If this comment isn't a troll, it's epsilon from it. We don't need to litigate the Constitution; a simple Google search for [trademark noncommercial] will suffice.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      So simple that you cannot even provide a link? This is what I found on the front page of that Google search: > At the same time, the statute characterizes certain activities as non-actionable “exclusions,” including “any noncommercial use of a mark.” any any any That was from the beginning text of a link on the first page of Google results for the search that you told me to make. Did you read any of the pages? Or is your comment just trolling? For context, I was responded with: > That's not how trademarks work. Care to retract? Edit: Multiple links on the front page of that search appear to validate my thesis. You have provided no corroborative evidence. Edit2: Wow, my previous comment was flagged. Brutal. And not even a valid response could be generated. Edit3: Another choice quote from the front page: "Non-commercial use cannot be prevented, except if that use harms the distinctiveness of the trademark." Edit4: "The good news is that courts have consistently protected the public's right to use the trademarks of others in order to engage in criticism, commentary, news reporting and other forms of noncommercial expression." First link. Edit5: "Many companies claim trademark infringement or dilution when pursuing unauthorized uses of their names or logos on the Web - but it's not entirely clear how these laws apply to noncommercial activity on the Net." Contradicts the "definitely" claim that I first responded to. Edit6: Good thing my post was censored. Might not want to get these claims widely visible. Edit7: Who is trolling now? Edit8: Maybe you could give a court citation?
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Wait, are you saying that hyperterm is a criticism of or commentary on hyperterminal?
        mitchtbaum 10y ago
        "criticism of or commentary on" != "criticism, commentary, news reporting and other forms of noncommercial expression"
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  15 U.S. Code § 1125 [0]: ... (3) Exclusions The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection: (A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with — (i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or (ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner. (B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary. *(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.* ... Do you know of another section, subsection, or other that would validate your claim? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127
  - MawNicker 10y ago
    That's exactly how it ought to work. I hope this gets noticed despite you being so heavily down-voted (and flagged... wtf?). I'd like to see it get properly refuted if it's not true.
  - yincrash 10y ago
    This only covers trademark dilution which is one cause of action for trademark infringement, but not the only possible cause of action. Usually trademark dilution is argued when the products are dissimilar. In this case, they are not dissimilar. And as such, this is the regular definition of infringement and is not covered by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3). It falls distinctly under § 1125(a). PS - You linked to 15 U.S.C. § 1127, but quoted 1125. PPS - An overview of the difference between dilution and infringement: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-dilution.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-diluti...
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Unfortunately HN didn't allow me to edit the comment. 1127 however contains the definition of many terms and I believe the same conclusion can be drawn from them (Trademark does not apply to noncommercial use). Here is 1125(a): (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, *uses in commerce any word*, ... As such, it does not apply in this situation. Further, 1125(c)(3)(C) is an exclusion across the entire 1125 subsection (and yes, for dilution, which is what has been argued here). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

This doesn't appear to be a commercial product, so there could be no trademark violation.

zyxley 10y ago

That's not how trademarks work.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Please explain how they work. The US government has only been given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. A downmod is not an explanation. You could post a snippet of law, for example.
- JoBrad 10y ago
  That's a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. Some very simple searching lands you at this page, which has some helpful information about trademarks, how to pick one, and how to enforce it. Properly enforced, trademarks are a source of financial stability for entrepreneurs, and it is entirely in the realm of the US government to regulate them. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/basic-facts-about-trademarks-videos http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-ba...
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Unfortunately my current network appears to block that site. Perhaps you could paste a quote from that page that is relevant to this discussion? The argument here is that this use is non-commercial (we are also apparently arguing about a non-respondent trademark), so the financial stability of entrepreneurs is irrelevant.
    - thomasfoster96 10y ago
      Intellectual property is still intellectual property, even if a non-profit is using it. Your argument would allow any nonprofit to use the trademarks of any business in the United States, which is clearly neither good for entrepreneurs nor legal.
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        Nonprofits are typically engaged in commercial activity.
- tptacek 10y ago
  If this comment isn't a troll, it's epsilon from it. We don't need to litigate the Constitution; a simple Google search for [trademark noncommercial] will suffice.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    So simple that you cannot even provide a link? This is what I found on the front page of that Google search: > At the same time, the statute characterizes certain activities as non-actionable “exclusions,” including “any noncommercial use of a mark.” any any any That was from the beginning text of a link on the first page of Google results for the search that you told me to make. Did you read any of the pages? Or is your comment just trolling? For context, I was responded with: > That's not how trademarks work. Care to retract? Edit: Multiple links on the front page of that search appear to validate my thesis. You have provided no corroborative evidence. Edit2: Wow, my previous comment was flagged. Brutal. And not even a valid response could be generated. Edit3: Another choice quote from the front page: "Non-commercial use cannot be prevented, except if that use harms the distinctiveness of the trademark." Edit4: "The good news is that courts have consistently protected the public's right to use the trademarks of others in order to engage in criticism, commentary, news reporting and other forms of noncommercial expression." First link. Edit5: "Many companies claim trademark infringement or dilution when pursuing unauthorized uses of their names or logos on the Web - but it's not entirely clear how these laws apply to noncommercial activity on the Net." Contradicts the "definitely" claim that I first responded to. Edit6: Good thing my post was censored. Might not want to get these claims widely visible. Edit7: Who is trolling now? Edit8: Maybe you could give a court citation?
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Wait, are you saying that hyperterm is a criticism of or commentary on hyperterminal?
      - mitchtbaum 10y ago
        "criticism of or commentary on" != "criticism, commentary, news reporting and other forms of noncommercial expression"
jsprogrammer 10y ago
15 U.S. Code § 1125 [0]: ... (3) Exclusions The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection: (A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with — (i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or (ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner. (B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary. *(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.* ... Do you know of another section, subsection, or other that would validate your claim? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127
- MawNicker 10y ago
  That's exactly how it ought to work. I hope this gets noticed despite you being so heavily down-voted (and flagged... wtf?). I'd like to see it get properly refuted if it's not true.
- yincrash 10y ago
  This only covers trademark dilution which is one cause of action for trademark infringement, but not the only possible cause of action. Usually trademark dilution is argued when the products are dissimilar. In this case, they are not dissimilar. And as such, this is the regular definition of infringement and is not covered by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3). It falls distinctly under § 1125(a). PS - You linked to 15 U.S.C. § 1127, but quoted 1125. PPS - An overview of the difference between dilution and infringement: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-dilution.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-diluti...
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Unfortunately HN didn't allow me to edit the comment. 1127 however contains the definition of many terms and I believe the same conclusion can be drawn from them (Trademark does not apply to noncommercial use). Here is 1125(a): (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, *uses in commerce any word*, ... As such, it does not apply in this situation. Further, 1125(c)(3)(C) is an exclusion across the entire 1125 subsection (and yes, for dilution, which is what has been argued here). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125