3 ms·
> Moreover when I say "buy my beer to drink whilst you watch the Super Bowl" I'm not using the trademark, I'm using a description of a sports event I think you
by rtpg 12y ago
> Moreover when I say "buy my beer to drink whilst you watch the Super Bowl" I'm not using the trademark, I'm using a description of a sports event
I think you would also have a difficult time convincing a judge you were not talking about the NFL championship. Application of the law is rarely a "check the dictionary, guys, he's technically correct" thing. Especially when it comes to things like trademark violations (where it's about confusion to the general public)
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago>convincing a judge you were not talking about the NFL championship // You don't need to. Trademark law doesn't prevent you from referring to people's products, nor their origin, it prevents you from selling your own products as if they were someone else's. The judge doesn't care [shouldn't!] that you're referring to the NFL Super Bowl TM - their concern is whether you're suggesting your product comes from the company that own the Super Bowl trademark (for a limited set of products). Not even an imbecile would think that "buy X to use whilst you do Y" means that the people selling X own Y. "Buy our gloves for your skiing trip to France" - oh clearly that company owns France /s. It's not about confusion of the general public, it's removed from that. Even if you can show that there is no actual confusion (surveys or whatnot) the judge can still decide there is a likelihood of it (and vice versa).