10 ms·
It's AZLyrics's responsibility to police their own trademarks, so it's okay, unless they say it is not in a C&D letter. So it's legally okay, as far as we know
by logfromblammo 9y ago
It's AZLyrics's responsibility to police their own trademarks, so it's okay, unless they say it is not in a C&D letter.
So it's legally okay, as far as we know.
Still a dick move, though. It's not okay in my opinion. But I'm not the one who may gain or lose thousands of dollars by deciding whether or not to do it, either. I can't say for certain whether it would be okay or not from outside my comfy judgment armchair.
- ScottBurson 9y agoIt's blatant, intentional trademark infringement for direct commercial gain. IANAL, but I would think this might result in something quite a bit more expensive than a C&D -- like a lawsuit with punitive damages. ETA: and now the site owner is on record here on HN stating that the intent was to steal search traffic. I'm sure this is a cutthroat business ... but this is an open invitation for one's own throat to be cut.
- yvoschaap2 9y agoSo many lawyers here on HN, I forgot...
- wumbolad 9y agoYeah man these people are crazy
- ScottBurson 9y agoIt's not us you need to worry about. Good luck!
- logfromblammo 9y agoThe USPTO trademark search system (TESS [0]) reveals that "azlyrics" is not a registered trademark [in the US]. If the company hasn't registered it, and doesn't enforce it, it is not a trademark. [0] http://tess2.uspto.gov/ http://tess2.uspto.gov/
- rhizome 9y agoOn "initial interest confusion": http://www.klemchuk.com/30-trademark-infringement-by-meta-tags/ http://www.klemchuk.com/30-trademark-infringement-by-meta-ta...