Dear Google: Parody Is Not Trademark Infringement

Re:Dear Google: Parody Is Not Trademark Infringement by kgarten on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @09:20PM (#7776228)

I don't agree. The strength of some parodies or hoaxes is that you use the companies name, this is important to make people think (I believe). Under your definition groups like "The Yes Men" would not be considered parody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men

I don't want to go into the example you brought up with Foster Farms, you should realize that this comparison is pretty much flawed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear Google: Parody Is Not Trademark Infringement by SeanLuke on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @09:40PM (#7776288)

> Under your definition groups like "The Yes Men" would not be considered parody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men

With a few exceptions, The Yes Men do not do parody. Hoaxes and parody are quite different things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear Google: Parody Is Not Trademark Infringement by kgarten on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @04:58AM (#7777231)

see the comment above: I would classify Adbusters also as parody (spoof). Depends on your definition. https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear Google: Parody Is Not Trademark Infringement by TheMagicHorsey on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @01:27AM (#7776824)

It is not required to disguise yourself as another to make people think.

Parodies in the past did not depend on fooling people as to the source of words. It is enough to conjure up a thought of the parties parodied, through use of similar symbols/words/methods. One doesn't have to actually pretend to be them in an exact way for parody to hit its mark. Nor in the past have I seen great parodies do this.

[ Parent | on HN ]