3 ms·

IMAX sized. Interesting phrase. I wonder if I can now legally use it in marketing, publishing, reviews..., since I will be quoting the company itself.

• chris_wot 11y ago
  The issue is one of trademark dilution. The relevant legislation is codified in 15 U.S. Code § 1125 (c), which states: Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury. Note that it says "commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce" - use of the trademark in an article that cites it in a quote, or even uses it colloquially, is not going to apply. The lawyer who sent the cease and desist letter fundamentally misunderstood the law, and frankly I'd be concerned they were giving me incorrect counsel. A lawyer who holds such a fundamental misunderstanding of trademark law is, in my mind, a material risk to any business who needs to protect their trademark, and I'd be getting rid of them as soon as possible. I'm not even talking about the PR blunder here: I'm talking about the fact that they are incompetent, and you never want incompetent legal advise.