Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steerpike7" data-source="post: 5081039" data-attributes="member: 69730">The Lanham Act doesn't back up your conclusion. I don't intend to get into a bit argument over it because I do this for a living and making a case in a forum is irrelevant, but I'd hate for anyone to be misled by the things you have been posting here.&quot;Use in commerce&quot; is a broad phrase, and as the act itself says, &quot;distribution&quot; is covered, not just a sale.&nbsp; If you inject your free goods into the stream of commerce, whether charging for them or not, you're going to have trouble.In addition, the Lanham Act isn't the only thing you have to worry about. There are all kinds of claims for unfair business practices that may be available to the trademark owner.&nbsp; One that comes to mind is Passing Off, which has different elements than trademark infringement and those elements are usually easier to meet.No one should take from the discussions in these forums that you can't get in trouble for using someone else's trademark if you are not charging for your product.&nbsp; It is simply not true, and that kind of disinformation can lead a person who doesn't know better to get themselves into legal trouble they could have avoided.&nbsp; Anyone thinking along these lines should talk to competent IP counsel before acting.Also, the fact that this isn't a safe course of action should be self-evident in some ways.&nbsp; If what you are saying is true, then if I start a new software company, a company like Microsoft could ruin me by making a crappy knock-off of my product, slapping my trademarks on it, and giving it away free online.&nbsp; Sure, it costs them some money but they completely ruin me as a startup who is trying to establish good will for my mark.&nbsp; I think it should be rather clear to everyone that a variety of claims, some trademark-related and some not, would arise out of that course of action.The fact that you aren't charging for an item that has an infringing mark on it will not protect you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steerpike7, post: 5081039, member: 69730"] The Lanham Act doesn't back up your conclusion. I don't intend to get into a bit argument over it because I do this for a living and making a case in a forum is irrelevant, but I'd hate for anyone to be misled by the things you have been posting here. "Use in commerce" is a broad phrase, and as the act itself says, "distribution" is covered, not just a sale. If you inject your free goods into the stream of commerce, whether charging for them or not, you're going to have trouble. In addition, the Lanham Act isn't the only thing you have to worry about. There are all kinds of claims for unfair business practices that may be available to the trademark owner. One that comes to mind is Passing Off, which has different elements than trademark infringement and those elements are usually easier to meet. No one should take from the discussions in these forums that you can't get in trouble for using someone else's trademark if you are not charging for your product. It is simply not true, and that kind of disinformation can lead a person who doesn't know better to get themselves into legal trouble they could have avoided. Anyone thinking along these lines should talk to competent IP counsel before acting. Also, the fact that this isn't a safe course of action should be self-evident in some ways. If what you are saying is true, then if I start a new software company, a company like Microsoft could ruin me by making a crappy knock-off of my product, slapping my trademarks on it, and giving it away free online. Sure, it costs them some money but they completely ruin me as a startup who is trying to establish good will for my mark. I think it should be rather clear to everyone that a variety of claims, some trademark-related and some not, would arise out of that course of action. The fact that you aren't charging for an item that has an infringing mark on it will not protect you. [/QUOTE]

Verification