I don't know enough about trademark law to say precisely how that might affect any potential suit, of course, but it seems pretty clear it wouldn't help Google, at least.
Looking further into trademark law as written, ignoring for the moment any precedent set by the courts, there might be an argument under 43.c.3.A.ii that this is a form of comment on the status of Google (albeit that's probably not a great argument). Of course, that would also only seem to hold up if Google was arguing dilution, instead of arguing that this falsely represents Google's promotion of the song.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 01:03 am (UTC)I don't know enough about trademark law to say precisely how that might affect any potential suit, of course, but it seems pretty clear it wouldn't help Google, at least.
Looking further into trademark law as written, ignoring for the moment any precedent set by the courts, there might be an argument under 43.c.3.A.ii that this is a form of comment on the status of Google (albeit that's probably not a great argument). Of course, that would also only seem to hold up if Google was arguing dilution, instead of arguing that this falsely represents Google's promotion of the song.