On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +0000, Daniel Goldsmith wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders > > > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks. > > That is by far the most bizarre trademark restriction I've ever heard of, > > and not at all in keeping with my understanding of US trademark law. For > > European trademark law, though, I would have to take your word for it. > Why? If, for example, RUF<http://www.ruf-automobile.de> takes a > Porsche, re-bores the engine, fits different turbos, changes the > brakes and suspension, fits different cabin fittings &c, how can they > then reasonably say that the vehicle *is* a Porsche? The vehicle *was* > a Porsche, and there still is a lot of Porsche components in that > vehicle, but the totality of the vehicle now encompasses something far > greater than a Porsche. You cannot claim the vehicle is a Porsche, because that would be false and infringe the trademark because Porsche sells cars. But US trademark law protects your right to say that you *used* a Porsche; it'd doesn't follow that leaving logos intact means you're claiming the vehicle is a Porsche. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
