>>Judge Kozinski's opinion in New Kids on the Block v. Gnat Satellite
>>Information Network, 971 F2d 302 (1992), makes it clear that fair use
in
>>a situation where defendant is using plaintiff's trademark ....
>That's irrelevant here. The mark in question is only copyrighted,
not
>trademarked. Since a church does not in general engage in commerce,
>it's hard to see how they could ever trademark their logo other than
>for ancillary uses on coffee mugs and the like.
>R's,
>John
(It looks like my message got cut off yesterday, so I'm repeating it here in response to another message posted today.)
Churches' use of trademarks and logos are most certainly considered commerce! The Trademark Act defines the word "commerce" as "all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress" (yes, it is a circular definition, but I didn't write the Act). Churches can and do register trademarks all the time, typically for "evangelistic and ministerial services," "counseling," or "educational services." If commerce meant only for-profit commerce, then nonprofits could never protect their names, which is certainly not the case.
Having said that, use of a trademark in a Wikipedia article is likely to be fair use, presuming that such use is not "source-identifying" and is not "likely to cause confusion" - the lynchpin standard for determining trademark infringement.
Kenneth E. Liu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:57 GMT