3 ms·

Will Apple allow their trademark to be used in this way? Or does it fall under the “____ sucks” provision of free speech?

thaumasiotes 8y ago
It falls under the "nominative use" defense to an assertion of trademark infringement. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Trademarks are intended to provide consumers with the confidence that the products they're buying really come from the producer they claim to come from. As such, you're prohibited from assembling your own computer and branding it Apple; you've never been prohibited from referring to Apple.
- masonic 8y ago
  Why do retail entities refer to the Super Bowl by pseudonyms (e.g "The Big Game") rather than its true name?
  - peteretep 8y ago
    This is a good question, and there's some more information about it here: https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2013/01/articles/advertisers-beware-remember-that-super-bowl-is-a-protected-trademark-that-cant-be-used-in-a-commercial-without-permission/ https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2013/01/articles/advertiser... In summary: "If “Super Bowl” is used by an individual or business to describe the event and not used for commercial intent, then individuals and businesses can use the term. For example, a grocery store can say “Make sure to stock up on chips for the Super Bowl” but the store cannot say they are the “Official Super Bowl Chip Stop.”" That said, you can just avoid infringing entirely by calling it The Big Game
    - masonic 8y ago
      Yes, I would think so as well, but every retail entity avoids saying "Super Bowl". Maybe everyone is afraid to be first into the breach, like so many avoided using "Happy Birthday to You" for decades in fear of the bogus, broad copyright claim
- joe_hoyle 8y ago
  It was my understanding that this doesn’t cover using a trademark in a domain name. I could be wrong; my only experience of this is that “WordPress” is a trademark, and therefore it’s generally accepted that any WordPress related product is not allowed to use the trademark in their domains.
  - tonyztan 8y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but this 6th Circuit case might be relevant: Taubman v. Webfeats. "Even if [the] use is commercial, it must still lead to a likelihood of confusion to be violative of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). In Planned Parenthood, the defendant used the plaintiff's trade name as a domain name, without the qualifying moniker 'sucks,' or any other such addendum to indicate that the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the website. In contrast, 'taubmansucks.com' removes any confusion as to source. We find no possibility of confusion and no Lanham Act violation." https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1213191.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1213191.html.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    If it is true that that is "generally accepted", it's not for any reason based in the law.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

It falls under the "nominative use" defense to an assertion of trademark infringement. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Trademarks are intended to provide consumers with the confidence that the products they're buying really come from the producer they claim to come from. As such, you're prohibited from assembling your own computer and branding it Apple; you've never been prohibited from referring to Apple.

masonic 8y ago
Why do retail entities refer to the Super Bowl by pseudonyms (e.g "The Big Game") rather than its true name?
- peteretep 8y ago
  This is a good question, and there's some more information about it here: https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2013/01/articles/advertisers-beware-remember-that-super-bowl-is-a-protected-trademark-that-cant-be-used-in-a-commercial-without-permission/ https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2013/01/articles/advertiser... In summary: "If “Super Bowl” is used by an individual or business to describe the event and not used for commercial intent, then individuals and businesses can use the term. For example, a grocery store can say “Make sure to stock up on chips for the Super Bowl” but the store cannot say they are the “Official Super Bowl Chip Stop.”" That said, you can just avoid infringing entirely by calling it The Big Game
  - masonic 8y ago
    Yes, I would think so as well, but every retail entity avoids saying "Super Bowl". Maybe everyone is afraid to be first into the breach, like so many avoided using "Happy Birthday to You" for decades in fear of the bogus, broad copyright claim
joe_hoyle 8y ago
It was my understanding that this doesn’t cover using a trademark in a domain name. I could be wrong; my only experience of this is that “WordPress” is a trademark, and therefore it’s generally accepted that any WordPress related product is not allowed to use the trademark in their domains.
- tonyztan 8y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but this 6th Circuit case might be relevant: Taubman v. Webfeats. "Even if [the] use is commercial, it must still lead to a likelihood of confusion to be violative of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). In Planned Parenthood, the defendant used the plaintiff's trade name as a domain name, without the qualifying moniker 'sucks,' or any other such addendum to indicate that the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the website. In contrast, 'taubmansucks.com' removes any confusion as to source. We find no possibility of confusion and no Lanham Act violation." https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1213191.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1213191.html.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  If it is true that that is "generally accepted", it's not for any reason based in the law.