Trademark - SEO legal ?

[Dj Morri]

Hello everybody , a quick question:

Let's say you use Wordtracker and find 1000 searches a day for "nike shoes" and you buy a domain name "buynikeshoes.com" actually that domain is available, but just to make my point.

You optimize that site, quality content, keyword prominence, h1, bold, etc. all the SEO process and you sign up with CJ.com to link your site to some site that sell those shoes for a comission.

What happen if you start making $3000 dollars per month on comissions ?
Nike can sue you for use their brand on a domain name ?
What is the worst case scenario for this case ?

[Chris Boggs]

when I was selling health insurance back in the day in San Diego, we had the idea to have a site dedicated to selling Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and we decided to call it bluehealthquotes.com. We received a cease and desist letter within weeks, apparently "the Blues" had someone keeping an eye on domains being purchased w/the word blue in it. The letter told us that we could not use the word "blue" in our site name because it was trademarked. Any site that sold health insurance was apparently forbidden to use the term blue in the URL. We found another name and bid PPC on a bunch of "Blue Cross" and related terms and it worked. Nothing they can do about that.

I believe that Nike would probably do the same thing.

Your question is not about PPC, so let me answer that: IMO, there's nothing against optimizing the site for the nike terms, but you would probably have to put a &trade (TM sign) next to it each time...

by the way, see more about htis topic at this forum (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18).

[Dj Morri]

Thank you for your note Chris, this is natural SEO not PPC

[Chris Boggs]

please re-read my post...the first para pertains directly to your question.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

For the international users of the forum I think it may also be appropriate to point out that laws may not be the same in all countries. I think we tend to discuss these issues from a US point of view, which is fine since many of you come from there, but for the rest of us we just have to check with local law and see if the same apply here - it may be better or worse, but usually not the same :)

[Dj Morri]

Mike this case is here (USA), what do you think ?

[bhartzer]

One thing that works great is if you do a comparison between your products and the competitor's products. In many cases you can get by with it because you're comparing apples to apples--and you must mention the competitor's product to explain it to your users.

If your product has more features or better features, then tell your users. There's nothing wrong with mentioning them--the tv commercials do it all the time now.

[optimizemysite]

Worst case scenario the company may send you a cease and desist letter.

A couple of things to do if you are optimizing a site for trademarked terms:


Use appropriate trademark characters where appropriate
Buy a generic domain name - good = 'namebrandrunningshoes', bad = 'nikerunningshoes'.


Generally, if you are not misrepresenting their brand, and use the term to promote their product or services you will not run into problems.

[Carlos Chacón]

Hello Ladies & Gentlemans;

Maybe NIKE is a huge company with an international brand (of course it is!), but think about just a common name...some hotel´s name or maybe a National Park´s name.
In Costa Rica, we have a lot of National Parks and Refugies, so we optimized the pages using the keywords related with those places...

I think that maybe it will depend of which legal "Trademark" you want to use.

:confused:

[Dj Morri]

Carlos y cual es tu punto entonces acerca del trademark, que tiene que ver el national park con lo que explique en el primer post ?

I did bad buying a domain name with a brand, but there is nothing I can do now, just wait. I am making money for this and the final seller is actually "nike" in this hypothetical case through an affiliate, so it's not that bad.

Thanks everybody

[Carlos Chacón]

Hola Dj Morri,

National Parks also have a "Trademark"...names!
Who´s the owner? The Goverment maybe. So, many companies let´s called itselft as the National Park´s name.
So, maybe you will find web sites as:
http://www.arenal.net/ who used http://www.arenal.net/tabacon/....Information about Tabacon...who´s a trademark here.

You wrote "Nike can sue you for use their brand on a domain name ? "...
So, Tabacon Resort can sue arenal.net for use the brand and photos in the web site....

Who knows? :confused: Honestly, I do not think so....
That´s why I said : ...it will depend of the trademark that you want to use...
It is just an example with a different trademark.

Gracias!

[Dj Morri]

Thank you Carlos

[d1lundy]

So this does pose the question I've been trying to find. Can you bid on a competitors name provided you do not misrepresent who you are? For example can Wal Mart bid on the term Meijer so long as the title identifies them as Wal Mart and the description says something like "Shop and compare our prices with Meijer"? I've not found anything yet that says I can't bid on a competitors trademark so long as I'm not misreprisenting myself.

Little help here.

[mcanerin]

Moderators Note:

I've moved this thread to the SEO and Legal Issues Forum because it's more of a "legal" thread rather than a PPC, Domain Name or Organic issue.

Ian

[mcanerin]

Here are some of the general rules about trademarks. I'd love to say that if you know these you will be able to answer your own questions, but that would be optimistic, especially with regard to the internet. I hope they will help focus your questions, however.

1. A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name. A service mark is the same thing, except intended for services rather than goods.

2. It is not necessary to register a trademark for it to exist, but it's a really good idea, since it provides notice and has several legal advantages. If you have not registered a trademark, you would use ™ (SM for servicemark) to designate the trademarked item, if it is registered, then (and only then) you can use the ® symbol.

3. A Trademark is geographically focused. Trademark rights are limited to the territory of the government that grants them. You can legitimately have "Mikes Garage" trademarked by different people in different countries, and even in the same country - one in Detroit and one in New York, for example.

This is a HUGE issue when it is applied to the internet. There is no way to register a trademark "for the internet" other than general use and fame to the degree that everyone knows the brand (ie Coke or IBM), but that's not registration, just common law rules, and some jurisdictions (those using Napoleonic Law as a basis, for example) don't use the common law.

It is OK to use the same mark as another company, so long as the new use isn't likely to confuse consumers. Many internet trademark disputes are about this.

4. You can't get a trademark on names that are primarily geographically descriptive (or misdescriptive), a generic name, description (or misdescription)for an item, or a surname. There are rare exceptions to this due to longtime use and fame, but if you are just starting out, this is the rule you have to live with.

There are several types of phrases that can be trademarked:

A fanciful mark is a mark someone made up; examples include KODAK or HÄAGEN-DAZS. An arbitrary mark is a known term applied to a completely unrelated product or service; for instance, AMAZON.com for an online book-store cum one-stop shopping site or APPLE for computers. Fanciful and arbitrary marks are considered strong marks and garner substantial trademark protection.

A suggestive mark is one that hints at the product, but which requires an act of imagination to make the connection: COPPERTONE for sun tan lotion or PENGUIN for coolers or refrigerators are examples. Suggestive marks are also strong marks and receive protection.

A descriptive mark, predictably, describes the product: HOLIDAY INN describes a vacation hotel and FISH-FRI describes batter for frying fish. Descriptive marks do not receive any trademark protection unless their user has used them in commerce and has built up secondary meaning. "Secondary meaning" occurs when consumers identify the goods or services on which the descriptive term appears with a single source. In other words, if consumers know that HOLIDAY INN hotels are all affiliated with a single source, then the mark has secondary meaning and receives trademark protection.

Finally, generic marks simply designate the variety of goods involved: for example, "cola" used on soft drinks and "perfume" on perfume are both generic terms. Generic marks never receive any trademark protection; they are free for everybody to use. (Keep in mind, though, that "Cola" on a nightclub is arbitrary, and therefore receives protection).

If your opponent is complaining that you have used the word "bakery" for a bake shop or "car" for a car repair shop, then you can safely guess that the c & d is baseless. On the other hand, if your opponent is concerned about the fact that both of you use of the term "Sweet Pickles" on alpaca sweaters, then the c & d may have some merit.
Source: http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/faq.cgi

5. Currently, it's technically legal in the US to bid on trademarked names. HOWEVER, this is under hot dispute and is a ruling of a lower court that is currently being appealed, which means no competent lawyer would tell you it was OK without a whole bunch of weasel words - technically, it's legal - but until the matter is no longer under appeal, it's not settled. If France, it is illegal, but currently under appeal - the same warning applies there, as well.

In short - we don't know yet, so proceed at your own risk, and I recommend you get a written opinion from your lawyer so you can use it as a defence (and their insurance to pay off the judgement if their opinion is incorrect).

If this sounds like the kind of opinion a law firm would not write without a LOT of money, if at all - you are correct. I personally don't know any that would, but there might be a few out there - just make sure their insurance is fully paid. ;)

Better yet, avoid the whole issue if you can, for now. Personally, I think it should be legal, under certain circumstances (ie no possibility of confusion), but I certainly see the trademark owners side of things.

---------------

That's it in a nutshell. One key point is that trademark is very much an issue of local law - so just because something is OK in one jurisdiction doesn't automatically mean the same rule applies in another.

In general, when someone registers a domain like "buynikeshoes.com", to use the above example, they are trading off the power of nike branding - the word "nike" (which is trademarked by someone else) is the most powerful word in that phrase, based on branding and marketing by someone else.

Worse, for "Nike", the name is fanciful (the most powerful type of trademark) whereas buynikeshoes.com is primarily descriptive, the lowest type.

Especially important since Nike sells shoes.

Now, if the domain was "fixnikeshoes.com" or "buyusednikeshoes.com" it would not be as likely to be considered an infringement, since Nike does not fix shoes or sell used ones (that I know of). They may still complain on principle (and may win) but it's a lot less clear.

The domain "nikesucks.com" would usually be allowable under fair use rules, since the intent is not to trade off of the brand to sell shoes, but rather to comment or parody.

Hopefully that's more helpful. I'll give you the standard disclaimer that although I have a background in law, I do not practice publicly and this should not be considered legal advice - you should get a lawyer in your own legal jurisdiction to advise you on anything that may cost you a lot of money if you lose.

Ian

[bragadocchio]

For the international users of the forum I think it may also be appropriate to point out that laws may not be the same in all countries. I think we tend to discuss these issues from a US point of view, which is fine since many of you come from there, but for the rest of us we just have to check with local law and see if the same apply here - it may be better or worse, but usually not the same

Maybe, Mikkel, but not necessarily in this instance. Since the name being used is a ".com," there is quite possibly jurisdiction over at least the name in the United States. (In the Eastern District of Virginia to be more exact.) See: I'll see your domain name in (US) Court! (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/04/ill_see_your_domain_name/)

The suits themselves would be against the domain names, as if they were property that could be taken, and seized. This type of jurisdiction is known as "in rem" (against the thing), as opposed to jursidiction over the holder of the domain name, which would be "in personam" (against the person). So it doesn't matter where the "owner" of the domain name is located. The domain name itself is considered to be in Virginia when it is a ".com".

The cases that are discussed in the article are: Porsche Cars v Porsche.net and others (http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012028.P.pdf) (pdf), and Harrods Limited v Sixty Internet Domain Names (http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002414.P.pdf) (pdf).

One of the articles that is often cited when discussing this type of jurisdiction as it might apply to domain names is a Washington Law Review article by Thomas R. Lee, In REM Jurisdiction in Cyberspace (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/jurisdiction/lee.html). The article was written before the US federal courts ruled in the two cases above.

I believe that most other countries don't treat domain names as if they were property, located in their place of registration. But, if the name is a ".com" name, it may just be brought into court in Virginia.

Of course, as Ian noted, consultation with an attorney who is in your jursidiction, and has some knowledge of intellectual property as it applies to the internet is the wisest course of action when faced with this type of situation.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

You are only talking about the domain issue but there is a lot more at stake here: trademark law, marketing law etc - depending on jurisdiction. If a Danish company register a domain that violate my trademarks in Denmark the case between us will take place in Denmark under Danish law. That is completely independant of how to resolve the domain dispute in itself - the harm his actions might do to my trademark, or the marketing laws he migh violate is a local issue and will most definately not fall under US law. Also, a danish court will be able to rule that a danish company is not allowed to use a domain if it violates law in the country that company operate or market to.

So I tick to my statement with the important point that: If you think all you hear at forums about how law works and you live outside the US you better check with your local lawyers! :)

We often experience another "funny" thing here. Because of all the police and legal movies and TV-series coming out of the US and into our homes here many people think that what they see is how law works here too - such as the right to make one phone call, use of police agents etc. and even how the court system works. It's not.

There is nothing wrong with the US movies and shows - it's not a critique of them, or all the great postings US SEOs make in forums like this, but it's a warning to all users outside the US: Law in the US and in other countries are most often not exactly the same and sometimes in fact very, very different.

[bragadocchio]

So I tick to my statement with the important point that: If you think all you hear at forums about how law works and you live outside the US you better check with your local lawyers! :)

I agree with you. Often the laws are very different, and that can't be stressed enough.

I do think that it is necessary to keep in mind, though, that there are some instances, like the domain name one I mentioned, where location is immaterial. Because the internet doesn't have the geographic borders that the physical world does, there are going to be laws that may have an impact upon you even if you don't have a presence in that other country.

But, when you check with your local lawyers, make certain that they are well enough versed in the laws of other jurisdictions when it comes to the internet, and how those could have an impact. They should also have an understanding of international laws like the Madrid Protocol (http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/) which allows for international registration of trademarks (at least amongst the signatories to the protocol).

As for the US movies and television shows...

There are a lot of people here in the US who get a distorted view of the law from those, too. :)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

there are going to be laws that may have an impact upon you even if you don't have a presence in that other country.


Yes, and there are many examples of that - and it goes both ways. As an example the Marketing laws in most European countries is applied to any company that market to users in that country - even if you are from the outside. Off course, if you have no assets here it could become very difficult to actually collect any fine you might get or "punish" you in any other way, but the law would still apply. I am sure the US has laws that they would require me to comply with if it's aimed at US users even though I do not live in the US.

You are right, it does complicate things :)
You definately need a lawyer that knows both local, regional (i.e. US Federal or EEC) and global agreements that applies to you. I have a realy good local law firm I use specialized in Internet related law issues so they work perfet for me.

[mcanerin]

One other thing to point out - like it or not, your local laws may not have a lot of bearing on the issue.

Why? Enforcement.

Let's say that your country passes a by-law making it illegal to show a human face on a website. This was actually law in Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It may still be law in other fundementalist Islamic nations and other jurisdictions where viewing of the human body is tightly controlled.

Although it's true that the Taliban had complete authority over it's citizens, the only way it could enforce that rule would be to either stop it at the border and/or pass harsh laws on it's citizens. It would not be able to demand that Google (a US company) do things it's way. It's control existed only within it's borders.

So the result is that although the laws of many nations are involved, only two matter - the legal jurisdiction of the search engine and the legal jurisdiction of the person using Google.

Futher, only the legal jurisdiction of the search engine can actually affect the search engine directly, the legal jurisdiction of the user can only affect the user.

This means that saying that US law does not apply is wrong. It's the only one that does truly apply to the Google. It can't be any other way - it's flatly impossible to comply with the local laws of every nation and jurisdiction on earth - they conflict frquently. Danish law applies to Danes using Google, just as Taliban law applied the those under Taliban rule. Danish law is so different from the rules under the Taliban with would be impossible to comply with both, for example.

The only way the Dane, Canadian or, yes, French law applies to Google would be if 1) Google had a physical presence or office in the jurisdiction, and 2) indirectly due to to the effect of the law on it's customers and thus finances and corporate policy.

An example of this is China. Google offers an altered version of it's results within China in order to comply with Chinese law. But Google itself does not have to comply - it only needs to comply if it wants access to the Chinese market. And you will note that they did not apply the altered results to the rest of the world.

So it's inaccurate to say that US law does not matter as long as the the head office is in the US - it's the only law that directly applies, and is therefore the default legal system that Google is using, and indeed MUST use. At the point where Dane, French, Taliban or Canadian law conflicts with the laws of the US, the US must take precidence over them as far as the head office is concerned. The other laws only apply to citizens of the jurisdictions involved.

So the bottom line is it's (mostly) a waste of time to talk about your local law and what Google does.

It is CRITICAL to be aware of your local law vis-a-vis what YOU are doing. Just because Google physically allows you to look for photographs of humans or nazi relics or bid on competitors terms does not mean that YOU can.

Assuming that your local laws and ideals apply to a person or company in a foreign country is just as parochial coming from your country and applying to the US as it is coming from the US and applying to your country. It works both ways.

You are responsible for acting in accordance with your local laws, (or forcing your government to change them if you disagree) primarily. If Google wants to operate as a business and market to a local jurisdiction, then they will also have to obey local laws, but really, that's not your concern as a user.

You concern is not that Google allows you to optimize for a competitors keyword, but whether or not your government does.

Here is an interesting issue, though. There are a few jurisdictions that do not have any significant trademark law (most do - it's good for business). If I'm in that jurisdiction, technically I can violate trademarks and patents all day without a problem. This isn't a big issue locally, but it can be huge when applied to the internet.

This is one reason why I'm personally opposed to using local laws to apply to most internet based businesses. There should be (IMO) some sort of basic enforcable standards. There should be a set of generally accepted "internet rules" and then, in addition to those, local law would apply to you. Kind of an Internet Commerce Treaty. The more strict of the two rules would apply.

Will this happen? Maybe, but not in the near future, I'm sure.

Ian

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

It seems to me that there is not agreement about that, Ian, between lawyers :)

I have watched several presentations, and talked directly, with a few European top-lawyers with a specialty in Internet related law and Europe and they definately said that the marketing laws of Europe, as applied in most countries here, does in fact apply to any company - inside or outside those countries, no matter where they are located. Basically what various lawyers here have said again and again is that you have to apply to the law of the country you want to market to.

You are right that a Danish or French court can not dictate what Google does anywhere else outside those countries but they definately can decide if a company are allowed to sell or promote on that market. If they don't comply that country is entirely in it's right to cut them off or in other ways make it impossible for them to operate there.

Off course, they could all be wrong and you could be right, Ian, I couldn't tell for sure not being a lawyers and not having read all relevant texts about it :)

Personally I think that countries should be allowed to make and set the rules for how to operate within their borders as they like. You probably wouldn't like China or Iran to dictate what you or I can or can't do so why should they?

[mcanerin]

You misunderstand. You should probably read the post again. It's about enforcement and jurisdiction, not the ability to pass a law or to enforce it within the jurisdictions borders.

I clearly stated that Google has to obey the rules in jurisdictions it markets to WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION, but it's more important to realize that what Google does or offers is irrelevant to the user, because it's them that it most directly affects. If Google makes something available that's illegal for you to do, you can't do it just because they make it available. You have responsibility to follow your own laws.

A jurisdiction can pass a law on anything it wants. In Texas, they once passed a law that stated the pi was now officially 3.14 and that's it. However, the passing of that law did not send the earth flying out of orbit, which is what would have happened had it actually been enforceable on good old mother nature... :D

Do I question whether or not EU law applies to actions within the EU? No. Of course it does - nothing else would.

Until the EU has a standing army or police force within the boundaries of the US, its laws do not affect US companies on, operating within, or marketing to US soil, only operating within the boundaries of the EU. I trust you are not claiming something different, because I take strong issue with your lawyers if you are. In context of your other statements I assume you are not.

If you surf to my website hosted in my country then your voluntary actions do not give your government authority over me. At that point you are a tourist, regardless of whether you are buying something or not.

Now, if I deliberately choose to market to your country in a substantial manner, then to the level that I entered your country for the purposes of marketing, your countries laws would apply to me (now *I'm* the visitor). But only that far.

I will leave the idiocy of applying geographically bound legal systems based on real property law to an international virtual environment alone for this post, but it doesn't mean I've forgotten it. :p

The fact that someone visits my site does not, in and of itself mean I'm "marketing" to them in a real sense. If I put an add in a local newspaper and someone takes it on an airplane to another country, where a citizen picks it up and reads it, I am not "marketing to them", even though they are reading marketing materials. There is no "mens rea", no intent to market specifically and purposefully. Otherwise all websites would be subject to all laws of all countries simultaneously due to the fact that a citizen of that country may visit for commercial purposes!

Nonsense. It only applies to knowingly marketing to a specific jurisdiction.

Personally I think that countries should be allowed to make and set the rules for how to operate within their borders as they like.

I agree with that to a point. Can we agree that passing a law ordering Jews or Kurds to gas chambers is NOT something a country has a right to do without interference from the outside? Technically, they do, but in practice a country has to operate beside, and interact with, other countries and peoples, which means that complete sovereignty is a myth, as long as you have trade and travel. They may have a right to pass the law, but no right to not being interferred with on the basis of crimes against humanity, for example.

The fact that the EU (and NAFTA) exist at all counters the point of perfect sovereignty.

They have no reason to exist except for trade and travel. The EU's purpose is to deal with the illogical restrictions created by perfect sovereignty. IMO, it's ironic that the first thing it did after being formed is to begin repeating the errors that lead to its creation, but on a larger scale. :rolleyes:

As long as a country wants access to the internet, they have to deal with the fact that it IS the internet, not an intranet. Local laws should not apply - local international trade laws and treaties should, which are similar but understand the concept that there are stakeholders other than it’s own citizens involved.

Now, if a country wants to prevent internet access in or out of it's borders, then of course they don't need to pay any attention whatsoever to international concerns, and they can micromanage it as much as they want. Otherwise, they should be prepared to cooperate with the other owners of the resource towards a common good.

There is another issue involved here that muddies up the borders a bit: "protective principle". Every nation has the right to extend the scope of its law beyond its borders to protect the rights and property of its own nationals. An attack on a U.S. citizen abroad may violate U.S. law. A gunshot from Canada that kills a person in the United States may properly be prosecuted in the United States. A hacker who attacks a computer in the United States from a foreign country violates U.S. law, and it is entirely appropriate that the United States should have the authority to protect itself from such attacks. Whether the U.S. will take the lead in such investigations or not will depend not so much on law, but on international politics.

But all this "protective principle" does is allow a country to pass the law (which would be ultra viris and illegal otherwise). It's does not give it any ability to enforce it outside of it's own border. The reason it's done it for the purposes of, once again, cooperation. The protective principle allows nations to legally cooperate for things like the UN and Interpol, for example. But it's about the cooperation of people within it's borders regarding external events that it applies to.

It boils down to the principle of cooperating with others to achieve a common goal, not enforcing your views and rules on others. That's why I have an issue with the concept of perfect sovereignty of a nation being applied to an international resource.

The final note is, although you could pass a law about whatever you wanted, you don't have the rightt to expect anyone else to care about cooperating with you to enforce it, especially if you didn't coorperate with them to create a mutually acceptable rule in the first place.

The reason Canada did not send back draft dodgers from the US during the Vietnam war (even though the draft law clearly applied to them no matter where they were) was for the exact same reason we did not send back runaway slaves during the 1800's - we didn't support the law and it's our country :p . The US does not enforce Canadian same-sex marriage law or our anti-nuke rules and doesn't apologize to us about it, either. Nor do we expect them to.

However, the two countries DO have a huge number of laws and rules that we have cooperated on and do enforce routinely. We send back criminals to each others countries for proscution all the time. Cooperation works better in most cases.

Ian

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Can we agree that passing a law ordering Jews or Kurds to gas chambers is NOT something a country has a right to do without interference from the outside?

Funny enough "rights" often comes with power - and the "truth" (usually) belongs to the winners. A lot of the stuff that the US and EU is doing I don't think is right. A lot of what China do I don't like either but they all get away with it because they have the power to do so. Not neccesarily because it's right. Who will invade China? Who will invade the US? Who can? :)

Google adopted to Chinas demands. If little Denmark have asked the same on it's own Google probably wouldn't have cared to do anything. Right or wrong.

Anyway, I think we mostly agree, Ian - except that I don't believe in the "one big truth" or global law idea. Yes, we can, and do, have treaties and (almost) global agreements but as long as we can't even agree on something as fundamental as human rights across all major nations I don't think it is realistic to think that we can agree on detailed "internet law" - and I don't think it's a very desirable goal either. Let me give you one example ...

In most of Europe we enforce a a lot more consumer protection in various ways and laws compared to the US. I am not saying what is best (I definately sometimes hate the creative limitations it gives us here) but I think it has to be up to the people in Denmark, Europe, the US and elsewhere how they want to protect each other - or not, and then enforce that. I don't think the goal is for us all to agree globally on what is right or wrong. Let there be differences.

I know that from a business point of view those differences are a challange. That is one of the reasons EU was formed - to make it easier for business to trade inside Europe. But, from a personal point of view I don't like it. I like the diversity of the world. I don't want it to be the same. I want it to be different in as many ways as possible. Businesses has to adopt to it as they allways has, if you ask me.

I have my limits too, off course, As I said, I think that there are many nations that do wrong things - some of them worse than others. In extreme cases I do think the rest of the world shuld interfere - and so "we" do. However, that is very different from trying to agree on detailed law about issues such as marketing and consumer protection.

[mcanerin]

Fair enough Mikkel!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - I prefer to do "business" with people who are using the same rules as me.

Protectionism is a bad thing, from my perspective. Canada and the US get into a "yeah? Well if you put a tariff on THAT, then we'll put a tariff THIS" pissing match so often that I'm really tired of it - it seems immature. But that's just my experience and preferences - I'm sure it keeps the lawyers, diplomats and bureaucrats employed..

Now food, culture, etc - that's diversity I appreciate.

Oops we are off topic - back to your regularly scheduled Trademark thread...

Ian