Court Finds "Pinning" On the Internet To Be Fair Use (docketalarm.com)

speedplane writes: Pinterest has always aggressively defended their trademarks, but in 2013, they launched a trademark lawsuit against Pintrips, a travel planning startup that allows users to "pin" and share information about flights. Yesterday, however, a federal court issued a major ruling against Pinterest finding that "pinning" is a feature, not a trademark, and therefore is fair use. This seems to bode well for the many other "pinning" sites on the internet.

Comments

Re: Pin???

[speedplane]

fair use relates to copyright, so the court almost certainly didn't rule it was fair use

There is fair use in trademark too. Here's the quote from the judge (page 35):

After weighing the evidence presented at trial and considering the arguments made by the parties, the Court concludes that Pintrips satisfies the first two elements of the fair use analysis in that it uses the term pin “otherwise than as a mark” and “only to describe [its] goods or services.” 15 U.S.C. 1115(b)(4).

Re:Seems like the right call

[DRJlaw]

Any sort of patent or term that basically boils down to "X with a computer/ X on the Internet" should not be valid. This is a concept that relates directly to a physical action (pinning something to a board). It's not in any way original or novel.

This has nothing to do with patents. This has to do with trademarks. There is no requirement that a trademark be original or novel. Simply that the owner is the earliest to make continuous use of a distinctive symbol (logo, word, color, sound, etc.) as a source identifier for a good or service (and for a federal trademark, use them in interstate commerce).

If you have priority in the mark, then others cannot use a mark in a way that causes a likelihood of confusion in the relevant public. The coding and implementation of your product has nothing to do with it. The brand identify and consumers' interest in ensuring that there are not a dozen different counterfeit Nike businesses selling athletic shoes has everything to do with it.

The surest way to have your opinions dismissed out of hand as irrelevant babblry is to demonstrate that you have literally no idea what sort of property is involved, what the legal standards are, and how it the rights are used in the real world. You've hit the trifecta.

Copyright?

[voidstin]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a site that is all about grabbing content from others (that may or may not actually own the content to begin with) going to court to defend a copyright on a standard english word?