Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kafen" data-source="post: 5080760" data-attributes="member: 11273">*still does not see how forum posts even factor into the issue without a transfer of product*Directly speaking to US law...Sleekcraft factor 6, dealing with advertising channels, could deal with the method of confusion which relates to a forum. However, it would not transfer the liability of the case to the site unless there was an actual link between the site owner and product - the source of the product confusion. EDIT: Just to give an example, I say. &quot;I know a site that tracks a Product X torrent.&quot; The simple usage of the word - even talk about that torrent - does not mean the site is liable for the torrent usage going by even the strictest anti-torrent rulings in Western countries. You have to actually shift over to China, not bashing China, to find a nation willing to compromise online speech in order to turn the simple usage into an actual violation. If you go to Playboy vs. Netscape, you see where judges are essentially begging for new laws that adequately deal with trademark infringement beyond Sleekcraft factors. Keeping that in mind... As a mark holder, I would not want to take any case to court that involves the discussion** of my products on a forum without the actual exchange of goods through the forum posts.*Dislclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I deal with it with my site management.** Going with the theory that html-linking to a site is an etiquette breach - not a violation under the law.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kafen, post: 5080760, member: 11273"] *still does not see how forum posts even factor into the issue without a transfer of product* Directly speaking to US law... Sleekcraft factor 6, dealing with advertising channels, could deal with the method of confusion which relates to a forum. However, it would not transfer the liability of the case to the site unless there was an actual link between the site owner and product - the source of the product confusion. EDIT: Just to give an example, I say. "I know a site that tracks a Product X torrent." The simple usage of the word - even talk about that torrent - does not mean the site is liable for the torrent usage going by even the strictest anti-torrent rulings in Western countries. You have to actually shift over to China, not bashing China, to find a nation willing to compromise online speech in order to turn the simple usage into an actual violation. If you go to Playboy vs. Netscape, you see where judges are essentially begging for new laws that adequately deal with trademark infringement beyond Sleekcraft factors. Keeping that in mind... As a mark holder, I would not want to take any case to court that involves the discussion** of my products on a forum without the actual exchange of goods through the forum posts. *Dislclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I deal with it with my site management. ** Going with the theory that html-linking to a site is an etiquette breach - not a violation under the law. [/QUOTE]

Verification