Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Emery
(Post 793799)
Thanks for the suggested reading Paul. I'll try to get to it this week. I'm sure there is some very useful and enlightening information in those subjects you mention.
And, while it seemed like a simple answer to me (based on the Canon site copyright notice), perhaps it is much more complicated than one can know and the result of the case, if brought into a court, could be very difficult to ascertain. One can never know for sure the outcome of a legal proceeding. It's not the lawyer who knows the most law who wins. It's the one who best presents his case to sway the judge or jury in his favor.
|
Well, yes, but . . . I get paid to do two things: get the best result for my client if they sue or get sued, and give them the best advice to avoid either. If I do my job well, my clients don't have to go to court.
If I get some time after the new year, I'll try to write a little bit about the general concerns in using product images for various purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Bowers
(Post 793814)
Walmart vs Samara has nothing to do with this situation at all. Walmart was selling the clothing and making a profit.
|
Walmart v. Samara set a new standard for protection of product configuration as a trademark as a matter of law. Neither the result nor the specific facts are of any relevance to this discussion. The holding, however, is highly relevant, i.e. production configuration is not registrable (and, hence, not protectable) absent proof of secondary meaning, rendering product configuration trademarks the equivalent of descriptive marks. This was a dramatic change from the law prior to Samara, which was set out in a case called Taco Cabana which found a protectable trademark interest in trade dress (a super-species of product configuration trademark) based on the assumption that it was suggestive, i.e. registrable without proof of secondary meaning. Note as well that the extent to which product configuration can be protected as trademark is subject to a number of other factors, which include whether the overall design is functional, whether that which is sought to be protected is subject to extant or expired utility patents, etc.
This is all highly technical, and one of the reasons why people get legal advice from lawyers (and why only lawyers are allowed, by law, to give legal advice). No one here is going to be interested in my opinion as to the bokeh of a particular lens, which camera is best for "running and gunning," or the best way to light and mike an interview. Yes, I know a little bit about these topics and have my own common sense, but that is a poor substitute for in-depth professional knowledge, training and experience. In other words, I know my limitations.
Quote:
This guy wants to use an image of the A1 to show that he is using an HDV camera. I highly doubt that Canon would have a problem with their logo being displayed especially if it is in a positive manner.
|
That's because you're not aware that one of the factors used in determining the strength of a mark in an infringement action is the extent of third-party use of that mark. You're also probably unaware that there is no such thing as a "naked license" for a trademark, i.e. a trademark owner can't simply say, "Sure, go ahead and use my mark." To do so, without exercising some control over the context in which the mark is used, is an invitation to forfeit rights in the mark.
Quote:
He is not profiting from the canon logo but rather the work in which he does from that camera.
|
Whether or not he's profiting has absolutely nothing to do with the considerations that Canon would apply in making such a determination. I
routinely send out cease-and-desist letters to small businesses who use my clients' trademarks in impermissible contexts,
even when they are my clients' own retailers.
Quote:
In order for him to tell what equipment he uses he must say Canon also and this is not infringement but a matter of fact.
|
Depending on how he says this, it
may not be an infringement. However, the topic of this thread is not the OP's equipment list, but the OP's business card.