Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Waller" data-source="post: 8267335" data-attributes="member: 6747584">I think my point is that you don’t need need permission to indicate compatibility with a brand.&nbsp; That’s well established in law (you don’t need Apple’s permission to make an iPhone case).Trademark violation is about making people confused about who or what they are dealing with. If the page is clear that the creator isn’t Roll20, they can mention Roll20 to their heart’s content. Or McDonalds. Or Facebook. Or BMW. Or IKEA (looks around nervously for IKEA goons).&nbsp; You can indicate compatibility with those brands freely, as long as it’s clear you are not representing that brand.(You can do it with D&amp;D too as long as you’re not misrepresenting yourself or using confusingly similar trade dress).So my question is still — has this ever actually happened, to anybody’s knowledge? Has Kickstarter ever agreed to take down a project at Roll20’s request on that basis?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Waller, post: 8267335, member: 6747584"] I think my point is that you don’t need need permission to indicate compatibility with a brand. That’s well established in law (you don’t need Apple’s permission to make an iPhone case). Trademark violation is about making people confused about who or what they are dealing with. If the page is clear that the creator isn’t Roll20, they can mention Roll20 to their heart’s content. Or McDonalds. Or Facebook. Or BMW. Or IKEA (looks around nervously for IKEA goons). You can indicate compatibility with those brands freely, as long as it’s clear you are not representing that brand. (You can do it with D&D too as long as you’re not misrepresenting yourself or using confusingly similar trade dress). So my question is still — has this ever actually happened, to anybody’s knowledge? Has Kickstarter ever agreed to take down a project at Roll20’s request on that basis? [/QUOTE]

Verification