Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> What that means is that it does not matter how many points of differentiation a mark >has from a registered trademark. What matters is that if a court decides that your >mark is >likely< to cause confusion, or dilute the value of a registered trademark >(which creates implied confusion for other customers), you can be enjoined from using >the infringing mark and may face additional damages as well. > So, Ryan, if that is the case, on what grounds can any (sane) person claim that a site called "kmartsucks.com" is going to 'confuse' consumers into believing the site is sponsored by KMart? Wouldn't making such a claim be perjurious on the face of it? Shouldn't you be required, by law, to produce an actual consumer who would testify, under oath, that they were confused by the site? Or is KMart claiming, as a matter of public record, that their customers are so mind-bogglingly stupid that they can't tell the difference between a site which is clearly anti-KMart and one which promotes KMart? (Given the sort of people who shop at KMart, this might not be entirely false...) Trademark law USED to be about protecting consumers. Following the 1996 expansion of the Lanham (Landham?) Act, however, it has become about protecting corporations from criticism, as trademark lawsuits have been used to silence discussion about corporate practices. (KMart is hardly the only offender in this. UHaul has done the same thing, and the Anti Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith shut down a web site devoted to the "Beast Wars Anti-Defamation League". (A tongue-in-cheek site dedicated to defending the Beast Wars Transformers (made by, uh, Hasbro, BTW) from attacks by too-rabid fans of the 'classic' Transformers) Protecting consumers? No. Not any longer. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
