Quote:
Originally Posted by Far-L
ummm... that bunny example isn't necessarily a good one as it makes a good case for infringement.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by billywatson
Resemble a Playboy bunny's ears enough and Playboy will go after them...just like I told Eddie, long ago, that ASU would eventually go after him.
Well...I think I said that to Eddie. I can't remember now...
I love getting old.
|
It's true Playboy would probably try to go after anyone that it deems infringing on their trademarks but they lost a landmark case against Netscape below when they tried suing Netscape because of the use of "Playboy" and "Playmate" which Playboy claimed was infringing on their copyrights but as the courts concluded, both those words are part of the English dictionary and used before it was trademarked so Netscape won.
http://news.cnet.com/Playboy-loses-r..._3-228787.html
Playboy also lost a case against Tori Welles (a former playmate) when she used the terms "Playboy", "Playmate of the Year", and "Playmate" on her site's meta description. Again, the judgement was that she was allowed to use it.
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl...2/02/17/074232
So as much as Playboy would like everyone to think they have exclusive rights to the words "Playboy" and "Playmate", they don't at least if someone doesn't use those words to closely resemble the actual Playboy brand. So if they don't have a foundation to stand on with infringement with their main two words, I don't think someone using a Bunny should be all too worried about Playboy winning an infringement against them.