Would &quot;Puff Daddy&quot; sue if I call my social media thing &quot;Puff&quot;? thank you for reading! I want to name something after part of a rapper name. So that I don't give away the name, I will use "Puff Daddy" as an example and I want my product to be "Puff" as an example which actually stands for something meaningful and the acronym is respected in the digital field. "Puff Daddy" the example rapper. "Puff" as my example digital social media software and social media site. Puff Daddy is relatively unknown by me (chicagoland) but has 100s of thousands facebook followers. He has a mobile app so you know when his concerts are named "Puff Mobile". And he has a small TV series which might be discontinued but I'm not sure. He is still active and will be for about another 10 years I suspect. I am making a digital presence software which will also have a social media site created as a result. I will name it "Puff". No one else is taking this name space, except for "Puff Daddy". "Puff Daddy" also happens to have a trademark on the name "Puff Daddy", but not "Puff". His trademark has mentions of music as well as "multimedia", this is the only debacle I have. Importantly... His followers call him "Puff" even though he is constantly marketed as "Puff Daddy". My question, will he have good legal ground to sue my company social media site and social media software (does automation stuff)? Let's assume my business will do very well. Second, could I get a trademark on Puff having it state "automation, software, social media, etc." with no mention of music, but I would likely have to mention multimedia (I would change it to this in the future once it gets bigger). Second, if the name was 9-10/10, would you go with it in this scenario from what it stated? Or try to come up with a new name? Thank you! I really appreciate it! The Names are as Examples, but extremely relevant
The most important fact to bear in mind is that there's no way to predict whether a given individual will decide to file a suit against you, though we might say on what basis he might, if he so chooses. There are two basic grounds for a suit, one pertaining to trademarks and the other pertaining to use of names – misappropriation and violating the right of publicity. A word can be a trademark, but the scope of protection is somewhat narrow because the protection is in terms of use within a given business. So calling your computer company "Apple" is out, but calling you roofing service the same is okay (assuming that somebody didn't previously register "Apple Roofing"). The main consideration is the likelihood of confusion. Supposing your business were selling landline telephones and I don't think Apple computer company sells such phones, you might still be in trouble if you called your company "Apple Phone", since they certainly do sell phones. There are thousands of trademarks that include "Puff", including Cocopuffs and various pizza and cheese puffs. Since "Puff" is such a generic word, there is a higher bar to proving infringement (there are thousands of trademarks including "Puff"). "Puff Daddy" is, however, a registered trademark covering perfume, jewelry, clothing and certain online services, so there is a non-negligible chance of confusion. In the case of names (or apparent names), an additional concern is whether this is commercial exploitation without consent of a person's name (which causes harm to the subject). The underpinning of this tort is that such a use falsely implies an endorsement of the product. Again, with a fairly generic word like Puff, there isn't a clear implication that Sean Combs has endorsed a product that is called "Puff Communications", but "Puff Daddy Communications" would almost certainly cross that line. The main issues, then, are the extent to which the name is generic vs. unique, and whether it is likely that a person would interpret the product or service as being the same as another, or would constitute an endorsement.
This is likely not fair use. At first blush it appeared similar to things one might see in The Onion (parody print and online newspaper) or other parody publications or shows (SNL, Key and Peele, etc.). In this case, the context would have likely been deemed transformative. However, since they are selling coffee called "Dumb Starbucks" while using their trademark, they would be be found liable if sued. You can parody a trademark brand, so long as the work is transformative such that the use of the brand goes from selling coffee to making a commentary in which the brand itself is relevant. Amendment I don't think this would pass the test as a parody/commentary. Originally, I failed to notice that they are actually selling coffee. This takes it out of fair use and they would almost certainly lose if sued. If they never sold the coffee, but just had it open as a performance art (like I had originally read this) giving the coffee away to complete the parody, I think they'd be fine. However, they are literally using the Starbucks logo, and selling the same product. This is clearly an infringement of their copyright and not fair use. Sorry for the confusion.
For works released after 1989, Copyright notices don't have any legal consequences in the United States. They are just a friendly reminder of who created the work and that they take their copyrights seriously. But those notices are not required anymore to enforce your copyrights on the works you created. If you have proof that you own the copyright on something and when it was created, and if it's still within the term limits, then you can take legal actions against people who violate your copyright. Disney has a history of repeated worldwide lobbying for extending the expiration durations in copyright laws in order to avoid any of their classic cartoons from falling out of copyright protection. So it could be that they try to intentionally muddy the waters and make it harder to find out which of their works expire when. That way people are less sure about what Disney works are and are not in the public domain, making it more risky to use them. But that's just my theory.
As I understand it, you can pretty much sue anybody for anything. The question, of course, is would you win the suit? All the lawyers here can correct me, but I believe in order to win, you would have to Show standing, that is, they're your comments and not someone else's Show that it's a deliberate act, and not just someone accidentally clicked the wrong checkbox. Show that it was an act by the agency and not by Facebook, for example. Show that you've been singled out for your viewpoint (they allow some people's comments) Show that there is no other reason to delete your comments (they're obscene, or advocate for an illegal act, for example). I'm probably missing something else. The real question is, even if you could demonstrate all these things, would it be worth it? You may spend $1,000's and you might not recover your legal fees. The case might take years.
No LLC or corporate entity exists around or in relation to SoftDAO. That's a bad thing, not a good thing, to those involved. Mr. Founder is obviously liable. When he wrote the DAO, he intended that it compete with IncumbentCo, and thus almost certainly intended that the software would violate the patent. And it doesn't matter that he's not the majority owner - he's still a part owner, meaning he's profiting from the infringement. Furthermore, he promoted the scheme, and according to 35 U.S. Code § 271(b), "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." Mr. Large, and any other identifiable part owner, is liable. Mr. Large did not commit a crime himself and generally is a good citizen. Good for him. But lots of people get sued that never committed a crime. Suing Mr. Large is like suing an Enron shareholder for owning Enron shares. Typically we do not sue shareholders. But he isn't a shareholder, and that's critical. If you want the benefits of a publicly traded company, you need to actually make a publicly traded company. Mr. Large is being unfairly targeted simply because he is a public figure with association with the project due to the Fortune Magazine article. Yes, he's being sued because of the article, but so what? It's like saying the police unfairly targeted you for an underage drinking citation because you were dumb enough to post yourself on Facebook. That argument won't fly in court. IncumbentCo can pick who they want to sue. It is nearly impossible to prove that Mr. Large is the 30th largest owner of SoftCoin. Court warrant allowed the Court to find some of Mr. Large's public keys on the SoftCoin blockchain, but the blockchain says he is actually only the 100th largest owner now. It doesn't matter. He's a part owner, by his own admission and by the blockchain evidence. The developers are also liable, also potentially for the whole amount. They created software that infringed a valid patent, and profited from it. If they can't shut it down, they can't shut it down, but they're going to be paying. I'm thinking this is a case where joint and several liability applies; IncumbentCo can go after any particular one of the owners and developers for the entire amount if they feel like it, and then it would be up to that person to then sue anyone else he thinks is partially liable. If Mr. Large is a billionaire and could pay the entire judgement himself, they might just do that. They'd probably go after Mr. Founder for as much as they thought they could get out of him, though. The users are also liable, since the law provides that using a patented invention without authority is infringing. But they're only liable for their one copy, and IncumbentCo may not bother with them, at least initially. However, the SoftDAO owns no assets No, but IncumbentCo is going to seek injunctions against selling SoftCoins or running the software. Could some people slip through the cracks? Sure. People infringe copyright all the time online, and only some get caught. You could easily imagine someone selling pirated software in exchange for cryptocurrency. This would be little different.
I know of an app that did similar. They sold membership access and linked Youtube videos. One of the Youtuber's started to take legal action against them. I don't know what happened but the app blocked their content from being shown. Updated this comment to remove incorrect information. After looking at Youtube's recent terms and conditions; you aren't allowed to link, embed or use the API if you want to put content behind a paywall, or show it alongside advertising: Under the section: Permissions and Restrictions https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&amp;template=terms So long as your app is free, and doesn't contain advertising you are probably okay.
Criminal liability is triggered by guilty knowledge. The people who run OnlyFans may know in general terms that it is probable that some illegal images exist on their servers, but so does everyone who allows the public to upload stuff. If that was illegal then the senior management of Google and Facebook would be liable to arrest on the same grounds and the Internet as we know it could not exist. Once the company becomes aware of a specific file that contains such material they need to remove it. If they fail to do so then they become liable. OnlyFans has been doing this: [OnlyFans] provides templates for each successive warning - explaining why material has been removed, and that failure to comply with terms of service may result in the closure of the account. [emphasis added] The site operators also become liable if they have a general policy of tolerating illegal material. This is a grey area; a prosecution would have to prove that the toleration was an active policy rather than merely ineffective moderation. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support such a claim. Permitting an account to continue after deleting an offending file is not toleration of the offending file. The BBC report does not allege that the OnlyFans policy of multiple warnings has been applied to cases of underage content; rather it talks about cases of incest, bestiality and exploitation of vulnerable adults (such as homeless people), and only where the accounts were particularly popular. The linked articles do report cases where accounts have been set up advertising content by minors, but they were shut down as soon as the company was notified of them. The second article also quotes its source as saying that lots of such accounts get closed down all the time; there doesn't seem to be any evidence of toleration of that material specifically. So in conclusion it seems from the available evidence that OnlyFans have been complying with the law. It is telling that the BBC article specifically does not say that they have done anything illegal. If the BBC had found unambiguous evidence of illegal conduct by OnlyFans management then they would certainly have highlighted this.
Copyrights protect the mark as is, and derivatives of it, but does not protect the brand from look a likes or from new trademarks that would be confusing. Consider the Pepsi logo: I could easily draw a circle half red and half blue with a white line straight across, vertically, or diagonally. In fact: © 2018 A. K. all rights reserved. There it is my new logo for my cola company called Hep-C (I'm raising awareness). Under copyright law Pepsi could not come after me because the logo is my own creation. I could even call it Pepsi and it would not be a copyright violation as you cannot copyright words. However, Pepsi has better lawyers than that and with my trademark so similar to theirs and the name sounding so similar (and my new name being potentially disparaging to Pepsi) it would likely confuse consumers between what was Pepsi and what was Hep-C thus under trademark law it would be disallowed for commerce. Now you would have common law trademark protection by virtue of using your mark in commerce, but it would only be for the states in which you used it. Additionally a lack of a registered trademark would disallow you from seeking statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.