4 ms·

By that logic trademarks should not exist

teddyh 5y ago
Trademarks exist to protect against consumer confusion (intentional or not), nothing else. In this case, the name of a person is used to refer to the events which happened to that person and the related media circus. Is this confusing to anybody? No.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  The name of this person is being used to refer to a fictional story. The events as depicted did not occur. It's absolutely confusing.
- elric 5y ago
  Additionally, trademarked names are made up by the trademark owner (or by people they pay). Your name is made up by your parents/guardians, and you generally have no say in it.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Your default name is the one you get from your parents, but there are all sorts of personal or professional reasons to change it, and it used to be standard for women to change their names at least once in a lifetime.
  - smeyer 5y ago
    I changed my last name when I got married. Does that mean that I own my last name but not my first name (which has been unchanged since birth)?
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Right. You own it, but your spouse doesn't.
      - smeyer 5y ago
        My spouse also changed their name, so I don't think there's be any difference in ownership.
- SuperNinKenDo 5y ago
  Might I suggest you make an actual attempt to wrestle with the issues the article presents.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  In this case, the consumer is being confused into thinking the film is about Amanda Knox, which it isn't (according to the producer). So the marketing is deceptive, or the producer is being deceitful. Either way, if Amanda had had a trademark on her name, she could have sued, I suppose. I'm not keen on the idea of trademarking ones own name though. I don't envisage many poor people bringing suit for wrongful use of their name. It would be used by rich people to intimidate reporters, and we'd all end up worse-informed. I think Amanda's complaint about the film and its promotion are valid, and I definitely think she should have been involved in the production. I think the producers should immediately start negotiating compensation with her, as a matter of goodwill.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    > In this case, the consumer is being confused into thinking the film is about Amanda Knox Are they? As I understand it, the name was not used in marketing, only mentioned once in an interview about where the story inspiration came from.

Trademarks exist to protect against consumer confusion (intentional or not), nothing else. In this case, the name of a person is used to refer to the events which happened to that person and the related media circus. Is this confusing to anybody? No.

moron4hire 5y ago
The name of this person is being used to refer to a fictional story. The events as depicted did not occur. It's absolutely confusing.
elric 5y ago
Additionally, trademarked names are made up by the trademark owner (or by people they pay). Your name is made up by your parents/guardians, and you generally have no say in it.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Your default name is the one you get from your parents, but there are all sorts of personal or professional reasons to change it, and it used to be standard for women to change their names at least once in a lifetime.
- smeyer 5y ago
  I changed my last name when I got married. Does that mean that I own my last name but not my first name (which has been unchanged since birth)?
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Right. You own it, but your spouse doesn't.
    - smeyer 5y ago
      My spouse also changed their name, so I don't think there's be any difference in ownership.
SuperNinKenDo 5y ago
Might I suggest you make an actual attempt to wrestle with the issues the article presents.
denton-scratch 5y ago
In this case, the consumer is being confused into thinking the film is about Amanda Knox, which it isn't (according to the producer). So the marketing is deceptive, or the producer is being deceitful. Either way, if Amanda had had a trademark on her name, she could have sued, I suppose. I'm not keen on the idea of trademarking ones own name though. I don't envisage many poor people bringing suit for wrongful use of their name. It would be used by rich people to intimidate reporters, and we'd all end up worse-informed. I think Amanda's complaint about the film and its promotion are valid, and I definitely think she should have been involved in the production. I think the producers should immediately start negotiating compensation with her, as a matter of goodwill.
- teddyh 5y ago
  > In this case, the consumer is being confused into thinking the film is about Amanda Knox Are they? As I understand it, the name was not used in marketing, only mentioned once in an interview about where the story inspiration came from.