Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by comrh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

comrh

But they didn't even understand the problem???

> Unfortunately in this situation we acted too quickly without truly understanding the reference to our brand.

Any reference to their brand is not a trademark issue. That is the point of the whole article in Ars to begin with!

View on HN

> Any reference to their brand is not a trademark issue.

Well, no, this is not true. Someone at a theater who uses the IMAX brand but does not have IMAX technology (maybe they use some no-name or in-house big screen technology) could do so by referencing the brand (ie. IMAX wording, IMAX logo, etc) in which case it'd be a trademark infringement. They'd be tying the IMAX brand to a non-IMAX screen in what I assume would be an unauthorized manner (I highly doubt IMAX would authorize its use).

Not all references to their brand are trademark issues but there are certain cases where references to the brand are trademark issues.

The wording of the parent comment wasn't perfect. But I understood it to mean "not every reference is a trademark issue."

Ah, if that was the intention, then yes, I fully agree. I (obviously) understood it to mean that "all references are not trademark issues".

Yeah that was the intention, it wasn't very clear. I was really talking any reference in journalism.

Exactly. I wonder how would this go down if the writer of the article compared IMAX directly instead of quoting a source.

Or something between the two. I find Ars claim "The single reference to IMAX in the story..." a little disingenuous; the title of the article and even the URL slug includes the reference to IMAX.

Not that IMAX's response was justified, and I applaud them for backing down, but if Ars is going to be so indignant, they should at least be more accurate.

Ars has largely lost its way over the last year. There's been a strategic change behind the scenes from their management. Their articles (which used to be excellent, and a few still are) are now usually tabloid fodder. The previous focus on SHTEAM (science, history, technology, engineering arts and mathematics) is all but gone - instead, replaced with more and more click-bait and trashy headlines.

To give you one example of the rubbish Ars now focusses on, http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2015/01/report-ghostbu...

If there's something meaningful in this article, it's lost on me.

Or the stream of articles of how someone recorded someone else doing something. 18 months ago, Ars was only interested in history, engineering and the arts. Now it's mostly tabloid.

>Any reference to their brand is not a trademark issue

True, but I can kind of see IMAX's point. In the context of the original use IMAX was used as a generic name for a very Large, high quality display. They don't want to become Kleenex or Xerox so they need to curtail those kinds of uses or they lose their mark.

1. The subject of the Ars interview that started all of this didn't use IMAX as a "generic name", he likened the experience of using SteamVR to that of having an IMAX screen in your home.

2. IMAX has already apologized and acknowledged that they didn't have a valid argument after all.

1. That is arguably how marks become generic.

2. IMAX has apologized to Ars for giving them a hard time for quoting it. It wouldn't surprise me n the least if they seperately sent a letter to Steam saying 'please stop saying that, even though you meant well.'

>1. That is arguably how marks become generic.

No, it is not. Please see Nominative Use (alt: "Nominative Fair Use"), which an affirmative defense that basically boils down to a party being directly allowed to make a competitive comparison between their product/service and another trademarked product/service. This looks like about as textbook a case as it gets too. First, here is the quote:

"It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house,'" he told Machkovech. "It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup."

To satisfy Nominative Use:

- Only the minimum amount of the mark necessary can be used, which is certainly the case here, it's just the plain text mark "IMAX" and not the special logo or font or whatever.

- Can't suggest any sponsorship. Also satisfied here, his comparison in no way suggests that IMAX Corporation endorses SteamVR.

- The product/service being compared has to be uniquely identified by the trademark, which is definitely the case here ("IMAX" names a unique technology/experience).

A trademark is for preventing consumer confusion around a specific product/service, not to control all speech, opinions, and competition regarding said product/service. Genericization is an entirely different process. He's not using "IMAX" to refer to VR in general (or at all), he's saying "My SteamVR product is competitive with/superior to the IMAX(TM) Experience" which is entirely permissible and indeed critical for a functioning market. IMAX Corp could of course argue that no, "SteamVR sux IMAX rox" without infringing on his trademark either.

I don't believe this is protected by trademark law. Kleenex cannot sue you because you used "kleenex" to refer to a tissue, unless you are selling the tissues.

That's the point. If your mark becomes generic it weakens it in legal terms, and makes it much harder to recover damages or register new derivative trademarks. From a trademark owner's point of view, having your trademark go generic is extremely undesirable because it erodes the mark's economic value, and it's the job of the lawyers to put their client's interests above all other considerations like short-term popularity on the Internet.

I understand weakening of a mark, but nowhere in trademark law does it say "you can sue over uses of your mark that threaten to make it generic". The law only says something like "if people use your mark to sell their product and you do not sue, then you might lose your mark".

Just because someone is articulating someone else's perspective on an issue, doesn't mean that they're excusing their actions or sympathizing with them. Lawyers can get itchy trigger fingers over the Kleenexing of brand names, and understanding why that is can be enlightening. I don't think the person you're responding to was saying that the IMAX lawyers were right all along and Ars was wrong, and I don't think the numerous other people in this thread that have gotten downvoted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench for saying similar things intended their comments to be taken that way either. There is nothing evil about trying to understand the reasoning of people you disagree with. I seriously question the intellectual honesty of the people who did the downvoting though, they should be ashamed of themselves no matter where they stand on the issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com