On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 16:46 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jonathan Baker-Bates wrote: > > > What is the effect of registering something like Peter Rabbit as a trade > > > mark instead of having it protected by copyright? > > > > - Control is perpetual. > > - Control extends to any use of the character, not just a single > > instance as with copyright. [...] > > No, trademarks are controlled primarily for use in trade. There are > various uses which are explicitly listed as non-infringing in the > Trade Marks Act and many other uses from case law. That's why > registering Peter Rabbit is useful for money-making, but not as useful > for artistic control. IANAL etc but see > http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/ > > Hope that explains,
Ah, good link. A quick scan, however, seems to confirm my fears about this. Even with the work in the public domain, it would still be rather easy to get sued in a way that would not be possible in the case of using, say, Father Christmas or Jesus Christ. Even non-commercial activity isn't entirely safe since "... a trademark holder can still start a lawsuit of [sic] such a non-commercial use dilutes the value of his trademark." And of course if the type of mark and the number of classes its registered in is sufficiently varied, very little commercial use of Peter Rabbit could be achieved. I admit I may have the wrong end of the stick though. Jonathan _______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
