I agree with changing the title of that studio incase theirs any confusion

What is it, Lightnin, that determines what appears higher up on a Google page?

That must be awkward for the guy who made that studio. :S

I'm still so glad we have free expression and no one cares if you use trademarked/registered characters in your Scratch projects. ^^

It's sad that they would ask for something like that, especially with the huge differences with what each thing is.

The funny thing is, it will take Google servers a while to update the name in their registries. It still says the same thing for me.

Lightnin wrote:

Recently the owner of the registered trademark for “Animation Hall of Fame” contacted us to request that we rename or remove a Scratch Studio titled “Animation Hall of Fame”. Apparently when one Googles “Animation Hall of Fame,” the link to their organization is first, but the results also include a link to a Scratch Studio with the same name.

We see the value of trademark law: We wouldn't want anyone else to be able to create a programming language called Scratch. That could lead to a lot of confusion, and wouldn't be fair. However, there are limits to how broadly trademark should be applied. For example, if someone created a skateboard called Scratch, I don't think we'd have much reason to complain (as long as they weren't using our logo, or claiming some kind of association or endorsement from us.)

But in this case, we don't feel that this trademark claim is reasonable or fair. According to the About page on their website, their “Animation Hall of Fame” is:

“To be located in the Central Florida area of the United States, the Animation Hall of Fame, Inc. complex will be an international interactive, entertainment attraction honoring the history and heritage of Animation from around the world. This state of the art high-tech complex and each of its venues will be designed to educate and entertain animation fans and non-fans alike from around the world.”
( http://animationhalloffame.org/about.html )

The Scratch studio formerly titled “Animation Hall of Fame” is, well, a Scratch studio: A webpage, created by a Scratcher, that shows projects made by kids who are learning to program animations with Scratch, a free programming tool created at MIT.

http://scratch.mit.edu/studios/346625/
(Check it out- there are some good Scratch animations in there!)

Is it really reasonable to demand that we rename this Scratch studio to avoid possible confusion between a multimillion dollar complex in Florida, and a webpage with some Scratch projects? We really don't think so. But because taking legal action to contest this would be very expensive and time consuming, we agreed to change the title of the studio formerly known as “Animation Hall of Fame” to: “Scratch Hall of Fame - Animation.” I guess this clarifies what should be pretty obvious: A webpage with some Scratch projects is not likely to be confused with a multimillion dollar museum.

I have a question. I was planning on starting an animated series soon, and a bit of the characters in it were going to be like Iron Man, Gandalf, and so on. Can I still use those characters? (to my followers: if you found this you just got a spoiler to one of my big projects )

Lightnin wrote:

mozarty wrote:

The thing is, kids, which predominantly make up the Scratch website, do not and will not take the time to search up a trademark.

And this is at the core of the issue - should kids who are making Scratch studios be required to search a trademark database before choosing a general name? We really don't think so: There isn't a likelihood of confusion.

Yes, I agree. Do you think it should be the Scratch team's responsibility to check for confusion? It just sounds like a bunch of dry, uninteresting busywork to me.

wkelly42 wrote:

Lightnin wrote:

Is it really reasonable to demand that we rename this Scratch studio to avoid possible confusion between a multimillion dollar complex in Florida, and a webpage with some Scratch projects? We really don't think so. But because taking legal action to contest this would be very expensive and time consuming, we agreed to change the title of the studio formerly known as “Animation Hall of Fame” to: “Scratch Hall of Fame - Animation.” I guess this clarifies what should be pretty obvious: A webpage with some Scratch projects is not likely to be confused with a multimillion dollar museum.

And THAT is why so many cease and desist letters are sent out about things like this. The lawyer KNOWS that it's a flimsy case at best, but they also know that people can't afford to fight it. They get what they want without having to have solid legal footing.

</rant>

Yep… What an awful flaw in our legal system.

I do not really think that using a trademark in a studio is a violation of the law. I don't know, I could be wrong, but it is pretty stupid. It's like saying that if I make a studio called “Scratch” then I cannot use that word only. Isn't that a little over-dramatic? You shouldn't be able to trademark certain words if used together. I rest my case.

does that mean you can't sell things with the scratch logo?

<hello>

I both agree and disagree with them. First of all, I agree because people have a right to protest against somebody using their own property and somewhat saying it belongs to them. But seriously people, come on. Who would sue a bunch of innocent kids that don't even take time to search Google/Bing/Ask/Whatever search engine they have. Just… COME. ON. I am okay with people wanting their property to be… You know… Unique, but it's not worth trying to sue a KID. So, yeah. But still, I'm more with the kids than the company…. So…. Yeah. This is sort of…Mean and reasonable at the same time.

when green flag clicked
forever   
say [WOOOOOOOOOOOT] 
end

Hmm. According to the AHOF's Facebook page, they're a non-profit organization.

if think this is ridiculous. if everyone thought like that half the projects would be removed. ( Mario,Pokemon,Pacman,LOTR,,Harrypotter,Minecraft,star wars……. the list is endless

Very interesting…

Did they think the studio was going off of people miss-clicking to Scratch and not the website?

epicdiamondgirl01 wrote:

I both agree and disagree with them. First of all, I agree because people have a right to protest against somebody using their own property and somewhat saying it belongs to them. But seriously people, come on. Who would sue a bunch of innocent kids that don't even take time to search Google/Bing/Ask/Whatever search engine they have. Just… COME. ON. I am okay with people wanting their property to be… You know… Unique, but it's not worth trying to sue a KID. So, yeah. But still, I'm more with the kids than the company…. So…. Yeah. This is sort of…Mean and reasonable at the same time.

They'd be suing MIT for hosting it.

The creator is kind of untraceable with the introduction of managers.

This is ridiculous. But I do bet that studio's gonna get a whole bunch more traffic.

AmericanCoder123 wrote:

It should be legal to have a studio with that name because it is not in the same domain as a museum. If you were to open a museum known as the animation hall of fame then there could be an actual problem. Also isn't it the creator of the studio's problem and not yours? It is his or her intellectual property. You are just the group that owns the site that hosts the studio.

I looked this up. Copied from an FAQ page (I'll include the website so I don't get sued XD)

Question: Does the product or service on which I am using the mark matter? Do dates matter?

Answer: It matters if the mark is not famous. The C&D should disclose your opponent?s products and/or services and the date on which it commenced use of the allegedly infringed mark. This will help you guesstimate whether a likelihood of confusion between the marks exists. For instance, if your opponent uses ?opera? on truffles and you use “opera” on silk gloves, consumers are not likely to confuse the products. If the mark is determined by a court to be famous, however, confusion is irrelevant and use on any type of goods may be an infringement.

Website was Chilling Effects or something…

Anyways, I think it means (and I might be totally wrong because I don't speak fancy that goodly) that if the name or logo is famous and you took it, they could be legal and stuff and take you to court, even though they are different products/things. However, if it isn't (which would have to be debated) then they have no claim against you. (or scratch for that matter.) I don't believe this museum is very famous. If it was, I would probably be able to find it by searching it on google. Seeing as I can't…



Point is, they are blowing this out of proportion. These people seriously need to get their priorities straight and stop harassing ten-year-olds for accidentally using their name. It's just plain sad. -_-

repeat until <>
    
end

TEST

That's quite interesting… I was just thinking, Cadbury's chocolate bars trademarked the color purple… xD