/top /all /jobs
Topics: #Alcohol #DrugFree #Education #LawFirm #Movies #News #Politics #Programming #PublicFigures #Romance #Technology

(PCRE-compatible)
Email administrator
Read Post
Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:35:55 -0800

FINDCJ from private IP /all Did @AndyTest steal old JDU’s trade dress? Discuss ! _reply Sun, 18 Feb 2024 04:27:55 -0800
Andy from private IP /all Was the old JD Underground a for-profit business? I doubt it-- so, case closed. But just for fun, I'll state my thoughts. The only actually identical look-and-feel feature is the main logo ("JDUnderground"), which I admittedly duplicated pixel-for-pixel. It's not trademarked, so I don't know where that leaves us unless there is a potential copyright claim on the phrase with that particular look and feel. I have a trademark/copyright case going right now where the dispute is over the name and menu of two Vietnamese restaurants, which is what inspired me to only take the name of the defunct-from-five-years-ago JD Underground. That's it-- everything else is original, including the new and improved layout and features. You can't patent or trademark the business method of having a BBS for legal-themed discussion. So no, I don't think this is a trade dress violation, particularly when the old website has been dead for nearly five years. _reply Sun, 18 Feb 2024 06:53:31 -0800
FINDCJ from private IP /all Arguments for Violation of Trade Dress: Similarity in visual elements: Copying the logo and color scheme could create a likelihood of confusion among users, even if your forum is non-profit. Consumers might mistakenly believe your forum is associated with the original or a successor to the defunct "jd underground." Dilution of distinctiveness: Even if your forum doesn't directly compete with the original, using their trade dress could weaken its distinctiveness in the minds of consumers, potentially harming the original's future endeavors. Unfair exploitation: Replicating the brand identity built by the original forum, even without profit motive, could be seen as unfairly exploiting their goodwill and invested effort. Arguments Against Violation of Trade Dress: Non-commercial use: Since your forum is non-profit and not competing with the original, the argument could be made that there's no commercial harm or intent to deceive consumers. Defunct entity: As the original forum is no longer operational, some might argue that their trade dress no longer deserves protection or is abandoned. Also, if old Admin doesn’t sue you within next 3 years we will argue laches. Transformative use: If your forum significantly alters the logo and color scheme, or uses them in a fundamentally different context, it could be considered a transformative use protected by fair use doctrines. Important Considerations: Jurisdiction: Trade dress laws vary across jurisdictions. Consulting with a lawyer familiar with intellectual property law in your specific location is crucial for a definitive assessment. Substantiality of similarities: The extent to which you copied the logo and color scheme, as well as the overall impression your forum creates, will significantly impact the strength of arguments for and against violation. Potential harm: Even if you believe your actions didn't cause harm, courts may consider the potential for future harm to the original forum's brand. _reply Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:29:20 -0800
Blee from private IP /all Was Ceej always AI? That would make sense actually. It would explain a lot of the bugs. _reply Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:57:57 -0800
Andy from private IP /all Looks like I'm in the clear here, which is good because I don't normally go to anyone with my hat in my hand asking for permission...under 17 U.S.C. sec. 102(a), a mere name or idea is not a copyrightable work, and under 102(b), even if copyright would otherwise apply: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 _reply Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:20:23 -0800
zerosugar from private IP /all old admin at one point threatened me with a copyright claim for sharing a screenshot of jdu back in 2019. only shared it to show a comment that was made. lol i still don’t get the hostility! i didn’t even know him or have any problems with him. beeyay also sent me a cease and desist letter via email alleging defamation just because i made fun of some of his photos at the gym. i didn’t even know his real name and still don’t, so don’t see how i could defame him even if i wanted. i guess i could defame his online persona and i still believe he may have been bangbus. he was referring to me with my full name though. thinking back, i just have to laugh. old admin was intimidating though. _reply Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:23:48 -0800
zerosugar from private IP /all note, i didn’t post beeyay’s pics. just referenced a pic existed of him flexing at the gym and said he looked like a fitness guru. he went back and forth. he did help me by deleting some content, but then i found out beeyay was speaking ill of me in private chat group so i didn’t trust him moderating mdu anymore. all the same, i’m also still very curious about who TI really was and a part of me thinks TI was really just old admin. when old admin and i had a falling out, TI ghosted me.
Replies require login.

Telemetry: page generated in 27.5 milliseconds for user at 44.201.97.224 on 2024-04-16 03:26:19

© 2024 Andrew G. Watters, Esq.

Test