3 ms·
I thought trademarks were for the defense against knock-offs, not the public domain.
by _0ffh 3y ago
I thought trademarks were for the defense against knock-offs, not the public domain.
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoprobably paranoid - was just wondering if you could get hit for claiming to have legitimate Tom and Jerry videos for download if you didn't have the trademark for Tom and Jerry.
- wongarsu 3y agoIf they are legitimate Tom and Jerry videos that's not an issue. If you make your own videos and call them Tom and Jerry, that's a potential trademark violation. The idea of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion, and while there's some abuse and perverse incentives most trademark law makes sense through that lens. You are allowed to sell your used Ford F150 under the trademark Ford, because that's an accurate description. It doesn't stop being a Ford, pretty much no matter what you do to it. But if you build a car from scratch and claim it's a Ford F150 that's a trademark violation because you would be pretending that the vehicle was made by the Ford Motor Company, with their manufacturing standards, quality control etc.
- skinkestek 3y agoThanks for a really easy to understand explanation!
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoyeah, I wasn't thinking straight - on the other hand your explanation does make me wonder now if Johnny Cash's One Piece At a Time Cadillac would have ran into trouble if he tried to sell it.