4 ms·

You don't need a court ruling to allow you to do something. It's the other way round. Of course it's fine to market a series of magazines called "_____ sucks".

You don't need a court ruling to allow you to do something. It's the other way round. Of course it's fine to market a series of magazines called "_____ sucks". It's just expressing an opinion. Trademark law doesn't come into it, unless the trademark owner can prove that consumers might reasonably think your use of their trademark is somehow authorised or affiliated with them. In the case of "____ sucks", that would be self-evidently not the case.

leereeves 12y ago
Of course expressing an opinion is protected. I'm wondering what the limits of this exception are. At the extreme edge, could I use MicrosoftSucks.com to sell Apple products? Microsoft products? Are you a lawyer? I'm not, so I'm looking for rulings in relevant court cases to clarify the issues and provide an authoritative answer.
leereeves 12y ago
Downvote me if you want; I don't care and it doesn't make you right. Simply adding "sucks" is not a free pass to do whatever you want with a trademark.
- callum85 12y ago
  I didn't downvote you! I didn't say it was a free pass to do anything. You can't lie about the company, for example. But that would be libel, not trademark infringement. As long as it's obvious to consumers that your use of the trademark is not on behalf of or authorised by the company, then it's not trademark infringement. And yes, simply adding "sucks" would pretty much always be a free pass against trademark infringement , except in really contrived scenarios, like if the trademark was a brand of vacuum cleaners :) That said, the Dumb Starbucks example is interesting, I think that's in a grey area, the kind of edge case you're talking about. Starbucks might well be able to demonstrate that some customers thought it was official (albeit obscure) marketing effort by them, especially because it's a coffee shop.

4 ms·

You don't need a court ruling to allow you to do something. It's the other way round. Of course it's fine to market a series of magazines called "_____ sucks".

by callum85 12y ago

leereeves 12y ago
Of course expressing an opinion is protected. I'm wondering what the limits of this exception are. At the extreme edge, could I use MicrosoftSucks.com to sell Apple products? Microsoft products? Are you a lawyer? I'm not, so I'm looking for rulings in relevant court cases to clarify the issues and provide an authoritative answer.
leereeves 12y ago
Downvote me if you want; I don't care and it doesn't make you right. Simply adding "sucks" is not a free pass to do whatever you want with a trademark.
- callum85 12y ago
  I didn't downvote you! I didn't say it was a free pass to do anything. You can't lie about the company, for example. But that would be libel, not trademark infringement. As long as it's obvious to consumers that your use of the trademark is not on behalf of or authorised by the company, then it's not trademark infringement. And yes, simply adding "sucks" would pretty much always be a free pass against trademark infringement , except in really contrived scenarios, like if the trademark was a brand of vacuum cleaners :) That said, the Dumb Starbucks example is interesting, I think that's in a grey area, the kind of edge case you're talking about. Starbucks might well be able to demonstrate that some customers thought it was official (albeit obscure) marketing effort by them, especially because it's a coffee shop.