using trademark in website
January 5, 2006 11:30 AM Subscribe
Trademarks - There's a forum-style website called IKEAforum and it displays the IKEA logo, but has a disclaimer that the site has no sponsorship or affiliation whatsoever with IKEA. Is the creator of this website at risk for a lawsuit from IKEA for trademark violation? (due to the URL, use of logo, etc). Could IKEA shut him down? Does it matter that it's not a money-making site (and sells no ad space)? If I created a similar site regarding another retailer (but NOT using its logo) -- how risky is that? Free legal advice is welcome ;-)
There are like 4 posts on that forum. Is this a self link?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:42 AM on January 5, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:42 AM on January 5, 2006
I am not a lawyer, but after finding several sites for the corporation that I worked for, the IP attorney said that we could go after some sites, but the backlash might not be worth it. It would depend on the point of the site -- [companyname]sucks.com would get a C&D. [companyname]fanboy.com would be ignored or asked to sign logo usage agreement.
posted by birdherder at 11:45 AM on January 5, 2006
posted by birdherder at 11:45 AM on January 5, 2006
Response by poster: No, this is not a self link! I have nothing to do with that site.
After searching the MeFi Archives again with different terms, I realize that this has been asked and answered, to some extent. But to hone my question a bit further -- if I want to create a forum site about a retailer (harmless and perhaps a sales-booster for the stores), it would suck if I couldn't put the retailer's name in my URL and website name.
So I'm wondering about the risks of that, specifically.
posted by nancoix at 11:50 AM on January 5, 2006
After searching the MeFi Archives again with different terms, I realize that this has been asked and answered, to some extent. But to hone my question a bit further -- if I want to create a forum site about a retailer (harmless and perhaps a sales-booster for the stores), it would suck if I couldn't put the retailer's name in my URL and website name.
So I'm wondering about the risks of that, specifically.
posted by nancoix at 11:50 AM on January 5, 2006
Response by poster: Further clarification of question again -- my URL would be more like a "fan site" name -- e.g. ILoveMegaStore.com.
posted by nancoix at 11:52 AM on January 5, 2006
posted by nancoix at 11:52 AM on January 5, 2006
If I created a similar site regarding another retailer (but NOT using its logo) -- how risky is that? Free legal advice is welcome ;-)
The site is certainly at some risk if (1) the web host is in the U.S., (2) the domain registration is in the U.S., and (3) has real information with real people listed on it. In a nutshell, by modifying 1, 2, or 3, the risk can be minimized. As pornsters and piraters know, it's easy to create a website that's fairly immune from civil remedies.
posted by rolypolyman at 11:52 AM on January 5, 2006
The site is certainly at some risk if (1) the web host is in the U.S., (2) the domain registration is in the U.S., and (3) has real information with real people listed on it. In a nutshell, by modifying 1, 2, or 3, the risk can be minimized. As pornsters and piraters know, it's easy to create a website that's fairly immune from civil remedies.
posted by rolypolyman at 11:52 AM on January 5, 2006
There are like 4 posts on that forum. Is this a self link?
Uh, plus-minus 250. (There's 254, 119 users.) It'll suffer badly from having way too many forums, but it's not brand-new.
posted by mendel at 12:28 PM on January 5, 2006
Uh, plus-minus 250. (There's 254, 119 users.) It'll suffer badly from having way too many forums, but it's not brand-new.
posted by mendel at 12:28 PM on January 5, 2006
The URL? Not really.
Most definitely.
The crux of the matter is, does the name of the site or its contents lead to confusing the viewer into believing it was endorsed by corporate giant X? Your allowed to use a trademarked name in order to describe the product, service etc (it is considered fair use) so long as you don't suggest that the company is endorsing it.
Might want to take a look at the faq on trademarks over at chilling effects which IIRC has a good overview of the ups and downs of trademark law.
posted by squeak at 12:45 PM on January 5, 2006
Most definitely.
The crux of the matter is, does the name of the site or its contents lead to confusing the viewer into believing it was endorsed by corporate giant X? Your allowed to use a trademarked name in order to describe the product, service etc (it is considered fair use) so long as you don't suggest that the company is endorsing it.
Might want to take a look at the faq on trademarks over at chilling effects which IIRC has a good overview of the ups and downs of trademark law.
posted by squeak at 12:45 PM on January 5, 2006
Working for a major web host I can tell you that we shut down sites all the time that have corporate names in them, but we shutter them for the following reasons:
1. Clearly an attempt at phishing.
2. At the request (including invoking DMCA) of the company.
3. Use of copyrighted materials.
We do not shut down "fan sites" and the like unless the corporation in question submits DMCA requests to do so. It's not in most company's best interest to do so. As long as your site isn't flaming a company or presenting information on how to game some promotion that they are running (and sometimes even if it is) most companies will leave you be.
posted by FlamingBore at 12:47 PM on January 5, 2006
1. Clearly an attempt at phishing.
2. At the request (including invoking DMCA) of the company.
3. Use of copyrighted materials.
We do not shut down "fan sites" and the like unless the corporation in question submits DMCA requests to do so. It's not in most company's best interest to do so. As long as your site isn't flaming a company or presenting information on how to game some promotion that they are running (and sometimes even if it is) most companies will leave you be.
posted by FlamingBore at 12:47 PM on January 5, 2006
Best answer: You need to read the UDRP.
This details the method and reasons a trademark holder (i.e. Ikea) can use to take ownership of a domain (i.e. ikeaforum.com) from its current holder.
For advanced reading, you can read icannwatch.com or various articles about the UDRP.
I would say that Ikea would have a slam-dunk case, under the UDRP as currently implemented, to take over the ikeaforum.com domain name. It appears to be an Ikea website, both from the use of the logo and the domain name, and that's a no-no under the UDRP, which is not geared toward protecting the rights of the little guy at all.
Obviously Ikea doesn't *have* to shut down such sites. Company-friendly sites rarely have a problem. But suppose that you had a bad experience with your company, your Ikea, and you wanted to report it on your potential website... would you want a site which the company could then shut down for trademark violations? I don't think so. So if I were you, for maximum independence, I would avoid as far as possible anything that might lead a reasonable person to believe that your website is any way sponsored by or associated with the company it discusses.
posted by jellicle at 1:22 PM on January 5, 2006
This details the method and reasons a trademark holder (i.e. Ikea) can use to take ownership of a domain (i.e. ikeaforum.com) from its current holder.
For advanced reading, you can read icannwatch.com or various articles about the UDRP.
I would say that Ikea would have a slam-dunk case, under the UDRP as currently implemented, to take over the ikeaforum.com domain name. It appears to be an Ikea website, both from the use of the logo and the domain name, and that's a no-no under the UDRP, which is not geared toward protecting the rights of the little guy at all.
Obviously Ikea doesn't *have* to shut down such sites. Company-friendly sites rarely have a problem. But suppose that you had a bad experience with your company, your Ikea, and you wanted to report it on your potential website... would you want a site which the company could then shut down for trademark violations? I don't think so. So if I were you, for maximum independence, I would avoid as far as possible anything that might lead a reasonable person to believe that your website is any way sponsored by or associated with the company it discusses.
posted by jellicle at 1:22 PM on January 5, 2006
Right, the URL isn't governed by US laws, but rather a U.N. body that you agree to when you register your domain. Older domain name disputes were settled by the courts, but no more.
The UDRP almost always sides with the larger 'more legitimate' organization, no matter how ridiculous the claim.
posted by delmoi at 2:11 PM on January 5, 2006
The UDRP almost always sides with the larger 'more legitimate' organization, no matter how ridiculous the claim.
posted by delmoi at 2:11 PM on January 5, 2006
Best answer: Slave to Target has survived for a while, but it's mostly fawning product reviews. Target is aware of her blog. The closest she's gotten to "issues" is discussing the pharmacy/birth control pill controversy in the fall and she managed to survive. Maybe you could contact her for advice?
posted by SashaPT at 6:34 PM on January 5, 2006
posted by SashaPT at 6:34 PM on January 5, 2006
Best answer: Somewhat recently, Apple ordered several retailers to stop using the term "iPod" in company names and URLs, alleging copyright infrigement. Fansites such as iPodLounge (now simply iLounge.com) were prompted to change their names as well.
posted by youarenothere at 11:39 PM on January 5, 2006
posted by youarenothere at 11:39 PM on January 5, 2006
Is the creator of this website at risk for a lawsuit from IKEA for trademark violation?
(due to the URL, use of logo, etc).
At risk? Yes. At risk of losing? Depends a great deal on the content of the site and other factors, including "risk of confusion."
Could IKEA shut him down?
To a very limited degree. Ikea might be able to get the domain name taken away, they might be able to limit his use of their trademarks in certain ways, but they ultimately would have a problem trying to prevent him from publishing truthful critical statements about the company.
Does it matter that it's not a money-making site (and sells no ad space)?
For the domain name and trademark issues, that is one factor in his favor, but it is by no means decisive.
If I created a similar site regarding another retailer (but NOT using its logo) -- how risky is that?
Depends a lot on the content.
Free legal advice is welcome ;-)
And worth what you pay for it.
On Preview: Jellicle is right... the tiny disclaimer at the bottom is nowhere near enough to save this site from a finding that there is a strong liklihood of confusion here. But I should say again, there's more than one factor that goes into these things.
rolypolyman also has a point, but that would not protect the site operators from losing the domain name in a UDRP proceeding.
posted by mikewas at 12:27 PM on January 6, 2006
(due to the URL, use of logo, etc).
At risk? Yes. At risk of losing? Depends a great deal on the content of the site and other factors, including "risk of confusion."
Could IKEA shut him down?
To a very limited degree. Ikea might be able to get the domain name taken away, they might be able to limit his use of their trademarks in certain ways, but they ultimately would have a problem trying to prevent him from publishing truthful critical statements about the company.
Does it matter that it's not a money-making site (and sells no ad space)?
For the domain name and trademark issues, that is one factor in his favor, but it is by no means decisive.
If I created a similar site regarding another retailer (but NOT using its logo) -- how risky is that?
Depends a lot on the content.
Free legal advice is welcome ;-)
And worth what you pay for it.
On Preview: Jellicle is right... the tiny disclaimer at the bottom is nowhere near enough to save this site from a finding that there is a strong liklihood of confusion here. But I should say again, there's more than one factor that goes into these things.
rolypolyman also has a point, but that would not protect the site operators from losing the domain name in a UDRP proceeding.
posted by mikewas at 12:27 PM on January 6, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
Could they shut them down? Highly unlikely through any official channels, if they chose to litigate then they could force them out of business by making it unprofitable or untenable to continue hosting the site.
As for a similar site without the logo, I wouldn't worry too much. A lot of people do it (with ads, without ads) and aside from a few instances, most companies would probably enjoy the free support/advertising that doesn't cost them a dime.
IANAL.
posted by purephase at 11:39 AM on January 5, 2006