On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:28 AM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:
You would be free to use that taxonomy, provided you did not copy other protected elements, such as visual design - which is what I think the subject-named case is about.
The ING / PNC trademark case is about the brand representation implied by the visual design. ING isn't alleging that PNC copied their visual design. ING is alleging that PNC is trying to create confusing in the marketplace by using similar design elements. That's the nature of a trademark case.
Just like we often think it's important that people understand the nuances and subtleties between different types of design, I believe it's important that we understand the nuances and subtleties between these different types of intellectual property protections. At some point, we're likely to have a conversation with a lawyer or someone else looking out for our behalf and it would be good to have a solid understanding of the concepts and how they work.
Jared ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
