3 ms·

Would a non-profit thing like this violate the trademark? This is just like publishing an interactive graph on Github usage.

by gkya 10y ago

sbuttgereit 10y ago
Possibly. I found this doing a quick search. I don't know how credible a source it is, but it sounds reasonable. (Better, more reliable sources would be interesting to see). "Non-commercial use cannot be prevented, except if that use harms the distinctiveness of the trademark."[1] There may well be an argument that the confusion about who's behind this and that it actually deals with the company holding the trademark, I would think GitHub has a case. I'm not sure it would be worth pursuing, unless not doing so threatens the enforce-ability of trademark. [1]http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/ http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/
seanwilson 10y ago
Why would it matter if they were non-profit? Any brand confusion has the potential to harm the original brand.
- dublinben 10y ago
  You generally have to be involved in trade to be in violation of a trademark.
  - seanwilson 10y ago
    > You generally have to be involved in trade to be in violation of a trademark. What's the rational behind that though? If you had a charity, a free web game, a free book etc. concerning something people find offensive with the name "Super Mario" in it, many people would be legitimately confused if Nintendo was behind it which could cause harm.
nerdponx 10y ago
The naming and URL would probably fall under "nominative fair use", which allows you to use another entity's mark in order to referred to that entity, As long as you are not suggesting that you are sponsored or affiliated with that entity. The other issue might be one of "initial interest confusion", which is exactly what happened with some people here: they clicked because they thought it was something other than what it was. Apparently that is actionable but inconsistently so, and the doctrine is controversial. Source: my dad is an IP lawyer and I asked him about it. I think there might be different considerations involved if Github actually wanted to use the "github.audio" domain name.

Would a non-profit thing like this violate the trademark? This is just like publishing an interactive graph on Github usage.

by gkya 10y ago

Would a non-profit thing like this violate the trademark? This is just like publishing an interactive graph on Github usage.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

Possibly. I found this doing a quick search. I don't know how credible a source it is, but it sounds reasonable. (Better, more reliable sources would be interesting to see). "Non-commercial use cannot be prevented, except if that use harms the distinctiveness of the trademark."[1] There may well be an argument that the confusion about who's behind this and that it actually deals with the company holding the trademark, I would think GitHub has a case. I'm not sure it would be worth pursuing, unless not doing so threatens the enforce-ability of trademark. [1]http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/ http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/

seanwilson 10y ago

Why would it matter if they were non-profit? Any brand confusion has the potential to harm the original brand.

dublinben 10y ago
You generally have to be involved in trade to be in violation of a trademark.
- seanwilson 10y ago
  > You generally have to be involved in trade to be in violation of a trademark. What's the rational behind that though? If you had a charity, a free web game, a free book etc. concerning something people find offensive with the name "Super Mario" in it, many people would be legitimately confused if Nintendo was behind it which could cause harm.

nerdponx 10y ago

The naming and URL would probably fall under "nominative fair use", which allows you to use another entity's mark in order to referred to that entity, As long as you are not suggesting that you are sponsored or affiliated with that entity. The other issue might be one of "initial interest confusion", which is exactly what happened with some people here: they clicked because they thought it was something other than what it was. Apparently that is actionable but inconsistently so, and the doctrine is controversial. Source: my dad is an IP lawyer and I asked him about it. I think there might be different considerations involved if Github actually wanted to use the "github.audio" domain name.