Originally posted by TheBlackCat
View Post
fixubuntu.com was not using Canonical trademarks to illustrate its point. Instead, that website was using Canonical's trademarks with no purpose other than identify and brand itself . That website obviously did not pass the Nominative Fair Use test that the EFF is invoking
From EFF:
* It's not easy to identify the product/company without using a mark (e.g., using the term "Chicago Bulls" instead of "the basketball team that plays in Chicago");
* Only so much is used as is necessary to identify the product/company and accomplish your purpose; and
* You do nothing to suggest the mark-owner has endorsed or sponsored your site.
As you can see:
* The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
* The favicon was the ubuntu logo
* No disclaimer
* No hint of parody or criticism , nothing! as you can see from the screenshot and the waybackmachine http://web.archive.org/web/201310050.../fixubuntu.com
Secondly, the highly uncreative domain name "fixubuntu.com" does not give you any clear hint of parody nor criticism. That domain name could be perfectly interpreted as an endorsed website whose objective is to help users to solve problems and bugs with Ubuntu. That looks like click bait and trademark stuffing too me . Adit does not matters if you change your website domain name, your website will remain online all the time, the "take down" FUD is full of BS.
So.... do you have any other argument other that invoking your masters, the EFF lawyers? Or can you think for yourself without invoking biased lawyers to discuss a very simple issue that is very simple to understand ?
Leave a comment: