theimperiousdork wrote:
Back to topic, though, those names were meant to poke fun at the companies they parody; but in The South Butt's case, as Delphiki might have already mentioned, it was a clothing company, similar to the that of the very company it parodied, which is the opposite direction: The North Face. It would make sense that The North Face litigates Winkelmann over the brand name, because of the fact that it sold similar products, and that The South Butt was meant to be a money-making enterprise, thus justifying their case. In MikeRoweSoft's case, though Rowe's purpose of registering the domain was to promote his web-design business, which is similar to the agenda of The South Butt, it was partly a blunder on the part of Microsoft due to their exaggerated reaction.
But in the case of Autism Speaks vs Zazzle vs AspieWeb, the main purpose of the shirts was protest. And in Autism Speaks's case, though they are a registered corporation, their name is to my knowledge an unregistered trademark. I do not think they are given the privilege to litigate anyone for any reason over the use of their name, especially if no one profits from said tactic.
Not really.
In both cases a corporation was defending its identifying mark and while I'm no expert on American corporate law, I suspect you'll find that no other company (within sane reason) would be allowed to call itself "Autism Speaks" or "Microsoft" whatever the perceived purpose of doing so might be, for the simple reason that both "Autism Speaks" and "Microsoft" are the registered and primary corporate identifiers, therefore any use other than that sanctioned by the name's owner is an infringement.
The specific way that Microsoft, for example, represents its name (font, spacing, colour, decorative border etc) may well be a separate registered trade mark or sign by virtue of its design, but this is a separate issue from protection of the company name itself and I'd suggest that the name is automatically protected by virtue of it being registered.
Another example: the bright yellow "K" character used by the Eastman Kodak Company, aka "Kodak", and the unique styling of the word "Kodak" more recently. All separate things and all are protected.
If a corporation is only permitted to defend its name when that has been registered as a distinct trade mark, and it is only permitted to defend that specific mark - anarchy would result and MikeRoweSoft, MyCrowSoft and a thousand other amusing lookalikes would exist.
I know you
so want the Zazzle thing to be about a big, nasty corporation suppressing a small and helpless individual's protest but I'm afraid it's much more convoluted than that.
Quote:
As for Plank, it was way back before you and I, and I would guest most of the participants of this discussion, had actually been members of this community. These are the articles that I am aware of where Plank outspokenly berates Autism Speaks. They date sometime between 2008 and 2009:
It's old news; some of it is very old and all of it has been addressed. People - and corporations - change.
Quote:
As for his supposed wealth, I don't really know about it.
Then you have no basis for speculation.
You probably wouldn't believe how many classical music CDs I own but I doubt you'd leap to making insinuations about unanswered questions regarding my ownership of them or reason for buying them. Why? Because you know nothing about
my supposed wealth either.
You
want to implicate Autism Speaks as being somehow involved and instead of pausing to look for evidence, you just go ahead and make the connection anyway. That's not justified.
Quote:
But, like I mentioned, it still raises a lot of questions. Plank acquiring multiple automobiles in the heat of the his connivance with Autism Speaks -- that, coupled with his silence and outright refusal to respond to questions, would definitely draw a lot of flak from those disillusioned.
You're making some sort of sinister connection between the number of cars Alex has owned and the presence of Autism Speaks but this is irrational.
Also, as I said earlier, "silence" is exactly that: silence. You have no right or reason to call it an "outright refusal to respond to questions" - because there
was no outright refusal. Just... silence.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
20 Jun 2012, 11:05 am
