3 ms·
To make sure nobody missed this. From the article: > Yes, there is a need for trademark holders, like Arm, to assert their ownership and rights and protect the
by assimpleaspossi 3y ago
To make sure nobody missed this. From the article:
> Yes, there is a need for trademark holders, like Arm, to assert their ownership and rights and protect their marks.
Sad in this case but absolutely true.
- User23 3y agoThis is probably a non-infringing use, but who wants to pay lawyers for a multi-year lawsuit with a billion dollar company over a fan-site?
- Gibbon1 3y agoThing about corporate lawyers is. They'll never make a judgement call where they stick their neck out. And unless someone important is threatening them they're utterly lazy and unaccountable.
- samus 3y agoThat doesn't necessarily mean that they have to outright ban usage of their brand. They could have worked out a deal beneficial to all sides. Of course, they don't have to... There is a concept of fair use of trademarks. Just referring to them by name is fair use. Disseminating truthful information or using them in an academic setting is fair use. Though, I see complications if the information is true, but hurtful for the brand, or if the website gets ad revenue. Obvious mention: IANAL
- kalleboo 3y ago“Hi, we saw your site has our trademark in the domain name. Unfortunately we have to protect our trademark so we ask of you: please pay our $1/year license fee for educational resources and put in at least 12 pt font above the fold that you are not affiliated with Arm Inc”