Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

To make sure nobody missed this. From the article:

> Yes, there is a need for trademark holders, like Arm, to assert their ownership and rights and protect their marks.

Sad in this case but absolutely true.



That doesn't necessarily mean that they have to outright ban usage of their brand. They could have worked out a deal beneficial to all sides. Of course, they don't have to...

There is a concept of fair use of trademarks. Just referring to them by name is fair use. Disseminating truthful information or using them in an academic setting is fair use. Though, I see complications if the information is true, but hurtful for the brand, or if the website gets ad revenue.

Obvious mention: IANAL


This is probably a non-infringing use, but who wants to pay lawyers for a multi-year lawsuit with a billion dollar company over a fan-site?


Thing about corporate lawyers is. They'll never make a judgement call where they stick their neck out. And unless someone important is threatening them they're utterly lazy and unaccountable.


“Hi, we saw your site has our trademark in the domain name. Unfortunately we have to protect our trademark so we ask of you: please pay our $1/year license fee for educational resources and put in at least 12 pt font above the fold that you are not affiliated with Arm Inc”




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: