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

Pin???

[mwvdlee]

How is "pinning" any different from any other type of hyperlink?

Re: Pin???

[jonbryce]

It is a trademark case, not a patent case. They wouldn't have complained if they had used another word to describe it. By the way, fair use relates to copyright, so the court almost certainly didn't rule it was fair use, they probably ruled that "pinning" is a generic word.

Re:Pin???

[dslauson]

The contention comes from the verbiage. Pinterest doesn't like other companies calling their links "pins".

Re:Pin???

[gmack]

Too bad for them. I've been "pinning" locations on maps since I was a child in the 80s.

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:Pin???

[willworkforbeer]

Here in the south, we still use 'em fer writin'. Them that can write, I mean.

Re: Pin???

[Theaetetus]

It is a trademark case, not a patent case. They wouldn't have complained if they had used another word to describe it. By the way, fair use relates to copyright, so the court almost certainly didn't rule it was fair use, they probably ruled that "pinning" is a generic word.

Both trademark and copyright have fair use doctrines, though I agree with you that I believe Subby meant the copyright one, in error. At the least, it's somewhat misleading because it implies that the court ruled that putting a snippet of something online was fair use from copyright infringement, which wasn't an issue.

In trademark, fair use is what allows us to say "Playboy Playmate Jenny McCarthy, noted anti-vax denier" - we're using Playboy's trademarks, but only to name the source and in a minimal way.

Here, this was really about whether "pinning" is a merely descriptive term for providing links and snippets. And yeah, it goes back to scrapbooking and certainly is just a descriptive term.

Complaining about "Pin" was a stupid thing to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting aside whether trademarks actually advance anything but the lawyers' wallets, Pinterest should have simply focused on "Pintrips", and complained about the similar name of the site, instead. That probably would have got them somewhere.

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.

Re:Seems like the right call

[Dragonslicer]

You should probably spend a little time reading and understanding the law (or possibly English) before spouting random words. Patents are not mentioned anywhere in the summary.

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?

Re:Seems like the right call

[DRJlaw]

Forgive me, but that doesn't seem to follow. Isn't a requirement to be the earliest use by definition the same as a requirement to be original? I mean, effectively what this court found was the trademark was not novel enough.

Incorrect. If you abandon use of a trademark for a sufficient period of time, anyone else can come along and adopt the same trademark for the same goods or services. The statutory presumption (Federal law) is abandonment after non-use for 3 years.

There are instances where a famous mark with residual goodwill, repair service activity, etc. has been deemed to still belong to the original owner even after more than 10 years of non-use, but those are exceptions based on odd circumstances (e.g. Ferrari trademarks for particular models of cars).

For an example of an entirely unoriginal trademark, see the Love beverage trademark dispute.

Note that I did not say first use. I said earliest continuous use. I meant that.