> I disagree, especially in non-US courts, largely because of the "commercial" nature of the site.
Just run a Foundation / Charitable organization (Stichting) under Dutch law, which is not-for-profit. It's possible to gain money with ads, or sell products. So you can pay the hosting. It's even allowed to give people a monthly income. As long it's not making profit (in the end you'll need 0).
A Charitable organisation (Stichting) is always 'non commercial' under Dutch law.
Just to mention Inter IKEA Systems B.V. is a company from The Netherlands.
Not sure what would happen if someone would host IKEAhackers.net from The Netherlands. To sue someone in the USA over "intellectual property rights" is quite easy, our system works quite different.
We're allowed to use someones name (Reclame Code Commissie), Dreft is allowed to make ads which say Ajax makes bad dish-soap. But this falls under another category, since IKEAhackers is not advertising for DealExtreme products.
http://www.iusmentis.com/merken/grappen-parodie/
Frew quotes:
> Verwarring alleen is niet genoeg. Verwarring met een origineel merk is alleen inbreuk als het gebruik ook commercieel is.
> Ook nietcommercieel gebruik van een merk kan merkinbreuk zijn. Het gebruik moet dan afbreuk doen aan de reputatie van het merk. Hier loopt een merkparodie al snel tegenaan.
Which says in English, that parodies are forbidden if "commercial use" and has "undermine the reputation".
IKEAhackers is a non-commercial (ads to pay hosting is NON profit) parody, right? And gains IKEA customers.
Would IKEAhackers.net be safer in The Netherlands?
>A Charitable organisation (Stichting) is always 'non commercial' under Dutch law. //
That's really interesting. Perhaps then on can set up a charitable organisation to bankrupt your competition and flip it to be a regular company ... even giving things away can be commercial as that can effectively destroy another companies market.
Just not making a profit doesn't make you a "charity" in UK. You have to have different company structure, different accounting; different terms and operating conditions apply.
>We're allowed to use someones name (Reclame Code Commissie), Dreft is allowed to make ads which say Ajax makes bad dish-soap. //
That's pretty standard it's in UK and USA (15 USC 1115(b)) law too usually it goes along with reporting and parody exclusions and parallels copyright in this respect.
IKEAhackers.net isn't a parody. Parody means comic entertainment. If the hacks comprised throwing away the instructions and having at it with a nail gun then perhaps you'd qualify as a parody site.
>Not sure what would happen if someone would host IKEAhackers.net from The Netherlands. //
I don't think that matters. If you're addressing people in a country (and they're arguably addressing people in all countries that IKEA operate in) then there's likely to be redress against [alleged] IP infringements allowed for in the country where those people reside.
Just run a Foundation / Charitable organization (Stichting) under Dutch law, which is not-for-profit. It's possible to gain money with ads, or sell products. So you can pay the hosting. It's even allowed to give people a monthly income. As long it's not making profit (in the end you'll need 0). A Charitable organisation (Stichting) is always 'non commercial' under Dutch law.
Just to mention Inter IKEA Systems B.V. is a company from The Netherlands.
Not sure what would happen if someone would host IKEAhackers.net from The Netherlands. To sue someone in the USA over "intellectual property rights" is quite easy, our system works quite different.
We're allowed to use someones name (Reclame Code Commissie), Dreft is allowed to make ads which say Ajax makes bad dish-soap. But this falls under another category, since IKEAhackers is not advertising for DealExtreme products.
http://www.iusmentis.com/merken/grappen-parodie/ Frew quotes: > Verwarring alleen is niet genoeg. Verwarring met een origineel merk is alleen inbreuk als het gebruik ook commercieel is. > Ook nietcommercieel gebruik van een merk kan merkinbreuk zijn. Het gebruik moet dan afbreuk doen aan de reputatie van het merk. Hier loopt een merkparodie al snel tegenaan.
Which says in English, that parodies are forbidden if "commercial use" and has "undermine the reputation".
IKEAhackers is a non-commercial (ads to pay hosting is NON profit) parody, right? And gains IKEA customers.
Would IKEAhackers.net be safer in The Netherlands?