From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:33:25 -0400

Thanks to numerous posters and point taken about the difference of
trademark, which is indeed a different zone.  I think my point
remains:  there's what you do and there's how you do it.  Doing what
you have to do to enforce rights is one thing, but displaying that you
get it and persuading the public that you are citizenly not predatory
is always in your power.

Jim O'Donnell

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:21 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:24:14 +1000
>
> The cakes situation has nothing to do with fair use because it is a
> trademark issue, as is pointed out in the article:
>
> "This sort of enforcement is probably typical, says Megan La Belle, an
> assistant professor of law at the Catholic University of America,
> because the burden of trademark protection always falls on the holder.
> “Trademark owners must ‘police’ their marks, or they risk losing
> protection,” she adds."
>
> The other example given, with the painter, is not just a fair use
> issue either as was noted in a previous article:
> http://chronicle.com/article/Appeals-Court-Stiff-Arms-U-of/132235/
>
> "The court also ruled that the university's own actions—displaying and
> even selling Mr. Moore's unlicensed works—undermined its ability to
> strictly enforce its trademark rights."
>
> Worth noting that the painter had missed out on pretty substantial
> revenue while this was happening. This was not "small dollars".
>
> I'm not saying that this wasn't overkill by the university, but
> trademark law is not the same as copyright and fair use does not
> apply. Not defending the trademarks could cost the uni a lot more.
>
> David
>
> David Groenewegen
> Director, Research Data
> Australian National Data Service
> Physical Address: 680 Blackburn Road, Clayton, Victoria
> Postal Address: c/o Monash University VIC 3800
> AUSTRALIA
> [log in to unmask]