3 ms·
I understand that risk, and will comply with Google's wishes. As the project is completely focused on Google's CSE, and serves only to draw attention to them, I
by hornbaker 10y ago
I understand that risk, and will comply with Google's wishes. As the project is completely focused on Google's CSE, and serves only to draw attention to them, I do hope they give me a pass. Technically, it's not unheard of... for example, AppleInsider.com is not an Apple property.
- manastungare 10y agoTrademarks, if not enforced, can be struck down, so it is unlikely that a company will simply ignore a case of trademark infringement when it is so easily confused with the trademarked products, including logos, colors, fonts, and overall functionality.
- crypto5 10y agoI think trademarks are applicable for specific verticals, it is Ok for two separate companies to have Apple as trademark for consumer electronics and say travel agency (http://www.applevacations.com/ http://www.applevacations.com/).
- iamatworknow 10y agoWhile this may be true, I think associating "Google" with "search engine" doesn't exactly imply separate business domains.
- crypto5 10y agoYeah, I commented mostly about AppleInsider case, which is in more grey zone.
- mmanfrin 10y agoIt's not about whether they like the trademark infringer or not, it's about the substantive infringement of their trademark and the fact that defense of the trademark is necessary for it to be legally viable. What you've done is the equivalent of saying "DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT OWN THIS VIDEO" on a youtube video of a tv show. Just because you're saying you don't own it and your intentions (may be/are) good does not mean the holder of the trademark or copyright will just say 'oh he seems nice, let him keep it up'.
- hornbaker 10y agoRelevant: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11111000/google-says-9to5google-is-violating-trademark http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11111000/google-says-9to5g... (note the update)
- danso 10y agoThat is not a particularly relevant story. The use of a trademark can be justified under fair use in the context of news reporting and commentary, e.g. "macrumors.com" or "applesucks.com", but even that is not cut-and-dry: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others You have a much more difficult defense in that you've produced something that does what the layperson associates Google with: search. Even worse, you are using Google's name and logo. It's been awhile since I've read through Google's TOS, but generally, TOS are very explicit about not using their trademark name or logo in such a way that implies endorsement.
- hornbaker 10y agoYou make good points, and I appreciate your point of view.