Logo issue

[domaino]

I'm in the process of designing a new website. The central theme of the website is based around a particular product which has the logo of another company on it (for instance a basketball with Spalding on it or a pair of trainers with Nike written on them). This product will play a dominant role in my website (for instance someone writing about a basketball or a pair of trainers, which I know is pathetic, but they are just examples). I was just wondering if it is legal to do so? I'm not sure if they may be able to take legal action on the basis that i'm using a product of their's so prominently on my site. I obviously own the product and will also be displaying it in my logo.

Sorry to be so vague, i'm sure you'll understand my hesitancy in revealing too many details.

 

[createmx]

Do you have photoshop? Just edit out the logos.

They can take legal action if you are using their logo to gain popularity and make money.

Watch some cartoons on TV. When they show a copied product they just change it slightly so they don't get into trouble with it.

The Simpsons is a good example of this. When they were denied permission to use a police puppet called "McGruff, the crime dog" they made up their own one called "McGriff, the crime dog".

 

[labrocca]

No it's not legal by a long shot.

 

[domaino]

No it's not legal by a long shot.

Can you please explain why not?

 

[ApeXX]

Can you please explain why not?

Is this copyrighted object going to be in your logo/banner, or are you just going to have pictures of it placed on the website?

I don't see any problem having pictures of the object on the website, as long as it does not insinuate the object is owned by you.

 

[domaino]

Is this copyrighted object going to be in your logo/banner, or are you just going to have pictures of it placed on the website?

I don't see any problem having pictures of the object on the website, as long as it does not insinuate the object is owned by you.

It will be in my banner but it is also easy to remove it if necessary. The object is owned by me as I purchased it from a shop, sorry but i'm not sure where you're coming from with that?

 

[e39m5]

is the site going to be negative towards the product? IF not just but ask for permission, I don't see why they would have a problem

e39m5

 

[labrocca]

Can you please explain why not?

It's illegal simply because you are including someone elses logo. This is a big no-no. It's considered a derivitive work. You can't base your logo off another logo. They can't be similar in design. It's just a bad idea what you are proposing. You should create your own unique logo if you want to stay away from legal hassles that might crop up in the future.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I'm agreeing with Labrocca here, so that has to tell you something

 

[ApeXX]

It will be in my banner but it is also easy to remove it if necessary. The object is owned by me as I purchased it from a shop, sorry but i'm not sure where you're coming from with that?

Because if this copyrighted object is incorporated into your own "logo" then that would be copyright infringement.

 

[bluesman]

My kneejerk reaction to everyone playing Logo Lego has always been that they're very wrong to get into such a game. However, a few recent legealnet decisions regarding Sucks Sites have been very shocking and confusing (to me, at least) in that area. Add to that the fact that such sites often also play around with the logos of the companies they're slamming.

As an example (although I haven't checked for this particular one) it would not be surprising to now see a "Kellogg's Sucks" site using the famous Kellog's font, perhaps also combined with something awful happening to their rooster or Tony the Tiger! Why WIPO has suddenly started allowing these blatant "negative light" sites is still a mystery to me, in view of all their other opposite precedents up until that point.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Sucks sites have been uphelp as free speach as long as it follows certain guidelines. But what you are saying isn't what the OP is attempting to do. It is to illegally use the copyrighted logointo thier own logo.

As as as WIPO is concerned, they make decisions on certain criterea, the plaintiff must prove all 3 criterea in order to rule in thier favor. If they plaintiff cannot prove all 3, they will not gain the domain. You can't paint with a broad brush here since each case is decided on it's own merit.

 

[labrocca]

Suck sites are parody sites or sites the serve the public good with open criticism (free speech issues).

 

[robertjr]

I'm agreeing with Labrocca here, so that has to tell you something

So, if I'm agreeing with both of you the sun & planets must be aligned. Thus, I'm out the door to take a peek with a mirror & cardboard.

 

[DNQuest.com]

..... or hell froze over... lol