Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWENSON
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?
|
My excuse for what? The fact that you clearly do not understand what parody means in the legal sense and the fact that you can't use the well recognized registered marks of a hardware company to promote porn just because you feel like it? Using someones registered marks however you want doesn't make it "parody". There is nothing about the site that ridicules Home Depot. Its just another site of crappy East European girls naked in their standard IKEA sets... wrapped in a site design to look like Home Depot.
You think this is a parody of Home Depot? Well, its a super weak argument and a losing argument and one that's actually an argument which has to be made in court when Home Depot files the lawsuit against the site owner and every webmaster who promotes it for every single instance of infringement... likely including watermarked images, logos on galleries etc etc etc and where they will demand 200k per instance of infringement.
Are you prepared to defend yourself against a multi-million dollar lawsuit from a fortune 500 company just because you think you're right? Good luck with that.. that said however, you'll likely not be alone given the level of idiocy on this board and in this industry.
The obvious fucking point, which idiots on this board will never grasp is that its about
legal risk. Not anyone's fantastic and ridiculously misguided and oddly flexible idea of right or wrong. Legal... risk. What is the point of using the colors/font etc? To create a confusingly similar logo to Home Depot, which is recognizable due to hundreds of millions of ad dollars spent promoting their marks and brand, by Home Depot.
If you think its reasonable to believe that Home Depot shareholders and in IP Attorneys are cool with that, you understand very little about anything at all.
Quote:
|
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).
|
What a fantastic assumption to bet your future on. Haha. Hmmm... well lets see you fucking retard.... Home Depot will go for statutory damages per each instance of infringement. Do you understand that? So it will be each place the logo appears including the images that are watermarked. Every banner etc.. So, at 200k per instance, it quickly becomes an 8-9 figure lawsuit. So now you have to have a 6-7 figure retainer and 2-4 lawyers and staff racking up legal bills which you have to pay. Good luck with that.
Likely they'll also try to get a court injunction to stop the site from operating during the case for the very reasons you stated and being a new site and theoretically having far more to gain than lose, the court would grant it. Just as the link to Ben and Jerrys lawsuit below demonstrates.
Then they can come after webmasters for contributory infringement for the same. So every webmaster that participated in the use of the registered marks for financial gains, will also be liable for similar amounts.
Proof you really need to wear a helmet and pads before you go out each day. Exactly my point. They sue and try to shut your site down asap. Great job using an article that also shows porn companies losing similar suits to prove.... uhm... your point?