Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
Again, this isn't a parody by any stretch of the imagination, in a legal sense. Using someones registered marks to wrap around standard E European run of the mill photos or videos of nude girls has nothing to do with ridiculing Home Depot. If you think it is parody, then you have no idea what parody means and its pointless to keep pointing this out to you.
Furthermore, the question is of legal risk and of what will ultimately have to be argued in court while facing a 7 or 8 or 9 figure lawsuit... what others have gotten away with is irrelevant to the very real risks.
The only question that matters is "What will Home Depot executives, shareholders and IP Attorneys think". The answer to that should be obvious to anyone.
The answer to that question will determine whether or not you end up being served a massive lawsuit.
|
You talk shit in a very cocksure manner but it doesn't make you any more right. I did not look around the site to see how text or commentary is handled (nor do I care to), I simply commented on your blanket statement that this is a guaranteed lawsuit and loss if sued. Plenty of other cases have gone the other way on even the flimsiest of defenses. The article I linked clearly stated that porn does not guarantee that parody covers things so you are preaching to the choir which should have been clear from my first comment. The stupid ass South Butt guy got sued while SELLING THE EXACT TYPE OF MERCHANDISE and settled out of court / stayed open. Are you going to argue that he spent 7 or 8 or fucking 9 figures in legal fees too? What you suggest is possible in a worse case scenario but it's hardly likely as in very fucking unlikely. At that point I hope you have a protected company setup or are ready to go bankrupt.
If the site is as suck as you say then you are probably 100% correct but your hyperbole is not needed at all.