View Single Post
Old 07-07-2014, 01:18 PM  
JSWENSON
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer View Post
I look forward to the inevitable shock, surprise and disbelief at receiving a C&D from Home Depot

For someone thats been in this industry this long, you should know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TampaToker View Post
First thing i thought as well
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions View Post
So I guess The Home Depot should be after Office Depot and Pet Depot as well?


Edit: Image appears broken to me, and didn't look at the site before posting. But, if OP changes color scheme and logo font, he should be fine, given the other businesses who use the term "depot."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer View Post
Quite amusing that you attempt to appear intelligent with a rhetorical question that doesn't address the issue at all and makes you look quite ignorant... and then you actually figure things out for yourself and add your own followup analysis addressing points which we saw as being painfully obvious because you initially had no fucking clue that its pretty obvious you'd be wise to change the trademarked font and trademarked color and confusing resemblance to a trademarked name and logo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink View Post

A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source.

In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in the public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product.

Under trademark law, dilution occurs either when unauthorized use of a mark "blurs" the "distinctive nature of the mark" or "tarnishes it." Likelihood of confusion is not required. 15 U.S.C §§ 1127, 1125©.


.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFK View Post
me too
Come on guys, seriously? Porn has been parodying mainstream shit since forever. One of you even talked about how long he's been in business and that he should know better, so what is your excuse?

If a lawsuit was filed in regards to this it would lead to an influx of sales due to mass mainstream exposure and would probably be considered protected anyhow depending on how the site is handled exactly (text etc).

http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawb...t-ben-cherrys/

Also don't forget Mad Magazine and their endless supply of parody ads and similar.


Last edited by JSWENSON; 07-07-2014 at 01:20 PM..
JSWENSON is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote