On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:07:50AM -0500, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
>     > * "or "powered by" statements"
>     >
>     > Is this too specific, or are we hoping a judge would understand this as
>     > referring to a class of statements? E.g. if there was a "FooBar Inside"
>     > statement instead of "Powered by FooBar"...
>
>     This is just a clarification of what kinds of things absolutely are
>     not 'Legal Notices'. It isn't meant to be exhaustive, but I did
>     recently add 'Powered by statements' because that is such a common
>     form in which I've seen the problematic condition.
>
>
> When Gerv raised this, I wondered why the word "trademarks" isn't in there.
> When I suggested adding "trademark legends" I'm SURE I had a good reason not to
> add "trademarks," but for the life of me I can't figure it out now. Maybe I was
> thinking about the case where a name is also a trademark, so in the copyright
> notice the company name would also be trademark? But that seems a silly thing
> to worry might get misinterpreted.

I believe something like that had occurred to me.  *Maybe* it would be
silly, but based on past experience I can anticipate *some* critical
readers saying that there's a contradiction (or, worse, a trap)
because you have to preserve copyright notices.


It would be a pretty frivolous argument to make.  Just because a word is both a trade name and a trademark doesn't mean that use as a trade name is use as a trademark. (I tried to figure out a clever formula with "=" and "!=" that you guys do but couldn't come up with one ...)

I say go with "trademarks or trademark legends."

Pam