Re: Re: Using Logos in Wikipedia Articles without pemission

I am jumping in the discussion as I have been reading it since it started! Concerning the use of logo in Wikipedia articles, I believe that the owner could not object if the "context" related to the logo display is stricly "informative" (as it should be assumed in wikipedia!) or "oriented" in perceivable negative context for the company or the trade mark. An example could be:
I use Coca Cola logo in a wikipedia article about soda (history, how they are made, distributed......) nothing to worry I use Coca Cola logo in an article about obesity, sugar overdose, ..... then it is likely that Coca Cola will not accept this as fair use!! In France we had several lawsuits against websites attacking commercial products and firms and reusing their logo (one if I recall was about Danone closing a factory in France). They had to shut down based on the use of logo, names and graphic chart. I do not think this will happen in a wikipedia article!
Alain

2006/10/3, Kenneth Liu <KEL[_at_]gg-law.com>:
>
>
> >>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
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Gammon & Grange, P.C.
> 8280 Greensboro Drive, 7th Floor
> McLean, VA 22102
> Ph: (703) 761-5000 ext.131
> kel[_at_]gg-law.com
> www.gg-law.com
>

-- 
Alain Minodier
tel:33 (0)6 12 29 37 97