Ben Finney wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I understand that. It's certainly possible. But what happens if > > someone stays within the bounds of the copyright license, and > > strays outside the bounds of the trademark license? Which one wins? > > As a copyright holder *and* trademark holder, you have certain rights > exclusively reserved in the work. You can sue for breach of those > rights under either law, since (despite the obfuscatory tactics of the > "Intellectual Property" cabal)
(Hey! I resemble that remark.) > the laws are entirely separate and work > from different premises. That's certainly true. My concern is simply that a defendant in a situation like this will present the copyright license as granting him the right to do what the trademark license does not allow. Basically, he'll argue that the copyright license should be read to include "you can use the mark even to disparage us or to create a false association". I know it doesn't actually *say* that in the license, but it also doesn't *not say* that. Why give someone an argument, even a tenous one, when you can add wording that takes away the entire argument? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
