Show Of Hands: Who Likes Bare Naked Teen Girls?!
 

Very nice!

I look forward to the inevitable shock, surprise and disbelief at receiving a C&D from Home Depot

For someone thats been in this industry this long, you should know better.

First thing i thought as well :2 cents:

So I guess The Home Depot should be after Office Depot and Pet Depot as well?


Edit: Image appears broken to me, and didn't look at the site before posting. But, if OP changes color scheme and logo font, he should be fine, given the other businesses who use the term "depot."

those girls seem a lot more service oriented than the the regular staff at Home Depot. I guess their specialty is in plumbing?

Quite amusing that you attempt to appear intelligent with a rhetorical question that doesn't address the issue at all and makes you look quite ignorant... and then you actually figure things out for yourself and add your own followup analysis addressing points which we saw as being painfully obvious because you initially had no fucking clue that its pretty obvious you'd be wise to change the trademarked font and trademarked color and confusing resemblance to a trademarked name and logo.

I saw the thread title and thought maybe this was something that happened at one of SPANNOW's Halloween Parties

http://s8.postimg.org/n4uwap97p/Home_Depot.jpghttp://s2.postimg.org/c0eiszybd/20140501.png

A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source.

In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in the public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product.

Under trademark law, dilution occurs either when unauthorized use of a mark "blurs" the "distinctive nature of the mark" or "tarnishes it." Likelihood of confusion is not required. 15 U.S.C §§ 1127, 1125©.


.

very nice promo!

Maybe its because I'm getting older, but that girl looks scary-lee young.

And yeah, I think suits from Home Depot might be a-payin' you a visit.

I would so marry that.

me too :2 cents:

By itself, the domain "Teen-Depot" poses no legal problems. But couple it with that white font/orange design scheme, and yes there is a problem there.

Come on guys, seriously? Porn has been parodying mainstream shit since forever. One of you even talked about how long he's been in business and that he should know better, so what is your excuse?

If a lawsuit was filed in regards to this it would lead to an influx of sales due to mass mainstream exposure and would probably be considered protected anyhow depending on how the site is handled exactly (text etc).

http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawb...t-ben-cherrys/

Also don't forget Mad Magazine and their endless supply of parody ads and similar.

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sit...our-Energy.jpg

My excuse for what? The fact that you clearly do not understand what parody means in the legal sense and the fact that you can't use the well recognized registered marks of a hardware company to promote porn just because you feel like it? Using someones registered marks however you want doesn't make it "parody". There is nothing about the site that ridicules Home Depot. Its just another site of crappy East European girls naked in their standard IKEA sets... wrapped in a site design to look like Home Depot.

You think this is a parody of Home Depot? Well, its a super weak argument and a losing argument and one that's actually an argument which has to be made in court when Home Depot files the lawsuit against the site owner and every webmaster who promotes it for every single instance of infringement... likely including watermarked images, logos on galleries etc etc etc and where they will demand 200k per instance of infringement.

Are you prepared to defend yourself against a multi-million dollar lawsuit from a fortune 500 company just because you think you're right? Good luck with that.. that said however, you'll likely not be alone given the level of idiocy on this board and in this industry.

The obvious fucking point, which idiots on this board will never grasp is that its about legal risk. Not anyone's fantastic and ridiculously misguided and oddly flexible idea of right or wrong. Legal... risk. What is the point of using the colors/font etc? To create a confusingly similar logo to Home Depot, which is recognizable due to hundreds of millions of ad dollars spent promoting their marks and brand, by Home Depot.

If you think its reasonable to believe that Home Depot shareholders and in IP Attorneys are cool with that, you understand very little about anything at all.

What a fantastic assumption to bet your future on. Haha. Hmmm... well lets see you fucking retard.... Home Depot will go for statutory damages per each instance of infringement. Do you understand that? So it will be each place the logo appears including the images that are watermarked. Every banner etc.. So, at 200k per instance, it quickly becomes an 8-9 figure lawsuit. So now you have to have a 6-7 figure retainer and 2-4 lawyers and staff racking up legal bills which you have to pay. Good luck with that.

Likely they'll also try to get a court injunction to stop the site from operating during the case for the very reasons you stated and being a new site and theoretically having far more to gain than lose, the court would grant it. Just as the link to Ben and Jerrys lawsuit below demonstrates.

Then they can come after webmasters for contributory infringement for the same. So every webmaster that participated in the use of the registered marks for financial gains, will also be liable for similar amounts.

Proof you really need to wear a helmet and pads before you go out each day. Exactly my point. They sue and try to shut your site down asap. Great job using an article that also shows porn companies losing similar suits to prove.... uhm... your point?

You should send that link to nearly all of the companies who have been putting out parodies in recent years. :2 cents:

I've argued countless times on here that adding "XXX," "This Ain't..." or "A XXX Parody" to the title of a flick, but then doing nothing but including sex in an abbreviated version of the original script isn't a parody. The recent ones don't even bother to make puns out of the character's names, let alone comment on, criticize or ridicule the originals. Bring me the good old days of porn parodies like "Texas Dildo Masquerade," "A Clockwork Orgy," and "Pulp Friction."

Again, this isn't a parody by any stretch of the imagination, in a legal sense. Using someones registered marks to wrap around standard E European run of the mill photos or videos of nude girls has nothing to do with ridiculing Home Depot. If you think it is parody, then you have no idea what parody means and its pointless to keep pointing this out to you.

Furthermore, the question is of legal risk and of what will ultimately have to be argued in court while facing a 7 or 8 or 9 figure lawsuit... what others have gotten away with is irrelevant to the very real risks.

The only question that matters is "What will Home Depot executives, shareholders and IP Attorneys think". The answer to that should be obvious to anyone.

The answer to that question will determine whether or not you end up being served a massive lawsuit.

I've been through this ride before, and it is an E-Ticket.
Best of luck with that, when Home Depot comes a calling.
{Fuck Mattel & Fuck Sesame Street}

Looking good...

Sexy cute girls :)

Me me me!

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...ising-Hand.gif

You talk shit in a very cocksure manner but it doesn't make you any more right. I did not look around the site to see how text or commentary is handled (nor do I care to), I simply commented on your blanket statement that this is a guaranteed lawsuit and loss if sued. Plenty of other cases have gone the other way on even the flimsiest of defenses. The article I linked clearly stated that porn does not guarantee that parody covers things so you are preaching to the choir which should have been clear from my first comment. The stupid ass South Butt guy got sued while SELLING THE EXACT TYPE OF MERCHANDISE and settled out of court / stayed open. Are you going to argue that he spent 7 or 8 or fucking 9 figures in legal fees too? What you suggest is possible in a worse case scenario but it's hardly likely as in very fucking unlikely. At that point I hope you have a protected company setup or are ready to go bankrupt.

If the site is as suck as you say then you are probably 100% correct but your hyperbole is not needed at all.

First, it's about risk. The risk is obvious to anyone who is not completely delusional. Further, the risks also apply to webmasters who promote the site and participate in the infringement. Lastly, i never said anything about 9 figure legal fees. So basically, you are fighting to demonstrate that you can't read, can't think, can't be bothered to actually look or verify what you are even talking about and can't comprehend.

It's not a parody. End of story. If its not a parody, then what is the argument? There is none.

Being sued doesn't necessarily mean losing. It does however mean having to spend a great deal of money to respond and then defend yourself. It means possibly losing everything you own. So the upside is to promote a horribly made site with generic content and make a few hundred dollars and the potential downside is to lose everything you own and spend the rest of your life paying off legal bills and/or a settlement or judgement.

Seems like a no brainer to me in the risk assessment department... but then again, its why i enjoy the banter with people who have no brains. Nothing but surprises.

I don't think it's a parody. Again, as said in my original post, the image wasn't showing up for me at first, so I thought the Home Depot comments were in regards to the "Depot" part of the name. After I clicked "Submit Reply," I thought, "Hmm, maybe there's more to this." So I typed in the url and then saw the offending images. I edited my post to reflect that, though I could have been a pussy and just completely changed my post.

The home depot logo is trademarked.
just like you cant take the nike swoosh and change the words and put it in your logo you cant take the home depot mark either.

And yes this in no way parody.

Who doesn't!!!! :thumbsup

definitely getting sued

Nice stuff there!!

Wow, great job... ::) hot babes and nice pics... :) :thumbsup

What sites in the Dream-Cash network of sites have been updated with content that has been shot in the last 5 months?

This isn't going to end well. :2 cents:

Really nice.

Their 2257 page http://www.dream-cash.com/2257.htm -- looks like its from 2005. A number of the businesses mentioned on that page have been gone for years (Ounique, Matrix, etc.).

Love it how questions getting ignored,perhaps spannow is actually bot ?

Nice eyes and cute face on this blondie!! :2 cents::thumbsup

Well that is a well written bot i can tell :upsidedow

Hahahahaha!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:2 cents:

Some unsolicited advise. Get a written legal opinion first.


.

Cross it how? And for what? Because you can't be inconvenienced to change the name/logo/watermarks? How dumb are you? This has to be among the top 10 stupidest things said on this board to date and that's no small feat.

So Home Depot serves you with a lawsuit for 200k per every single instance of your willful infringement in your commercial use of their registered marks... and in this thread alone is what? $2,000,000.00 or so worth of potential damage claims as you try to drum up business and promote a commercial site based around their registered marks? How do you not understand the problem that represents? How do you not understand that with every minute that passes, every watermark/logo that is posted online, potential damage claims increase?

You think you can be sued for $90,000,000.00 and then "cross that bridge"? Are you completely retarded? You think they're going to settle for the $16.00 you have in your checking account and walk away? They're going to financially rape you,.... you'll likely never be able to pay off the judgement after you forfeit every single thing you have of value including your clothes which will be auctioned off with everything else you own... all to make an example of you for others who might do the same, and to show shareholders they are on top of it and in charge.

Additionally, all webmasters that use your watermarked images/promo materials and even send this site traffic are also liable for civil damages to Home Depot and can also be legitimately sued with a very real, provable claim as they are also participating in the infringement of Home Depots marks in a direct partnership with you, where revenue generated is then shared.

is this foo for reel why so angry? :1orglaugh

Any chance of a response?

Teresa might be able to give you her legal opinion at least.

[email protected]

http://tour.teen-depot.com/graphics/logo.gif

http://www.homedepot.com/static/them...er/hd-logo.png

The Teen Depot and Home Depot are nothing alike, maybe.

[email protected]

A great parody for Home Depot, would have been Homo Depot, where dudes go in to get supplies and end up getting fucked (not unlike the real experience of shopping there). But it seems that Home Depot thought of that.. and both homodepot and thehomodepot.com both forward to homdepot.com.