3 ms·
It's actually not that complex. They're not misrepresenting themselves as the brands. They're not in the same industry as the brands. The standard is not "if an
by bastawhiz 2y ago
It's actually not that complex. They're not misrepresenting themselves as the brands. They're not in the same industry as the brands. The standard is not "if anyone could think this was real".
- serf 2y agothere are behaviors that are avoided not simply because they're allowed or disallowed, but because they'll likely generate trouble regardless of the outcome. poking at a corporation for the sake of legal infringement is still likely to require a lawyer in place to defend against the non-sense, even if it won't hold in court. There is a lot of stuff like this -- you generally don't poke sleeping bears even if you're sure they won't awaken.
- bastawhiz 2y agoThey're activists: their point is literally to cause trouble
- tdhoot 2y agoI wouldn't be so sure. Jack Daniels sued (and won) against a maker of dog toys that looked like Jack Daniels but were named "Bad Spaniels". Turns out trademark law actually is complex. https://www.today.com/food/news/jack-daniels-dog-toy-supreme-court-decision-rcna88875 https://www.today.com/food/news/jack-daniels-dog-toy-supreme...
- amiga386 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel%27s_Properties,_Inc._v._VIP_Products_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel%27s_Properties,_In... Jack Daniels won because the maker of the dog toys were selling them, and wanted a trademark themselves. Here we're talking about activists making non-commercial parody usage; the EFF's letter already mentions the Lanham Act, and let us add to that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_Dilution_Revision_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_Dilution_Revision_Ac...) which adds an express fair-use defense for noncommercial use.