4 ms·
It'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 tra
by mmanfrin 10y ago
It'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.