4 ms·
It's blatant, intentional trademark infringement for direct commercial gain. IANAL, but I would think this might result in something quite a bit more expensive
by ScottBurson 9y ago
It'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/