Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by acangiano | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

acangiano

This is definitely a trademark violation: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:prh...

A rename is in order.

View on HN

This doesn't appear to be a commercial product, so there could be no trademark violation.

That's not how trademarks work.

15 U.S. Code § 1125 [0]:

    ...
    (3) Exclusions The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
    
      (A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with    —

        (i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
        
        (ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

      (B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

     *(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.*
    ...

Do you know of another section, subsection, or other that would validate your claim?

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127

That's exactly how it ought to work. I hope this gets noticed despite you being so heavily down-voted (and flagged... wtf?). I'd like to see it get properly refuted if it's not true.

This only covers trademark dilution which is one cause of action for trademark infringement, but not the only possible cause of action. Usually trademark dilution is argued when the products are dissimilar. In this case, they are not dissimilar. And as such, this is the regular definition of infringement and is not covered by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3). It falls distinctly under § 1125(a).

PS - You linked to 15 U.S.C. § 1127, but quoted 1125.

PPS - An overview of the difference between dilution and infringement: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-diluti...

Unfortunately HN didn't allow me to edit the comment. 1127 however contains the definition of many terms and I believe the same conclusion can be drawn from them (Trademark does not apply to noncommercial use).

Here is 1125(a):

    (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, *uses in commerce any word*, ...

As such, it does not apply in this situation.

Further, 1125(c)(3)(C) is an exclusion across the entire 1125 subsection (and yes, for dilution, which is what has been argued here).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

RE: PPS

Your link says that infringement is a type of dilution. Therefore, no dilution means no infringement.

Also note my other response to this comment: 1125(a) explicitly only includes commercial use.

Again, the US government has only the authority to regulate interstate commerce (ie. trade [hence, trademark]).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com