[is0tope]

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but does anyone know the legal footing of having a business with another businesses name in it? For instance, this tool uses the word "YouTube" in its name, though it is used as only a part of it, and it is not a competitor. I've always wondered how this works.

[kube-system]

Broadly speaking, it would be trademark infringement if it is used in a way that may confuse others about the source of the product. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a specific product that Alphabet has a direct competitor for.

[thaumasiotes]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

> is a legal doctrine that provides an affirmative defense to trademark infringement as enunciated by the United States Ninth Circuit, by which a person may use the trademark of another as a reference to describe the other product, or to compare it to their own.

[anticensor]

Nominative use is explicitly ruled out in some other jurisdictions. Do not rely upon it.

[bdcravens]

Most corporations regularly search for such domains, and submit cease-and-desist. I received one related to an eBay-related domain, but in my case, I hadn't built a business around it so it was easy enough to just take the site offline.

[chiefalchemist]

Not sure about YouTube but WordPress does not allow the use of the name. WP in your (e.g.) domain name is ok. WordPress is not.

I'd imagine it's very similar for others. Often a company will pursue a violation if only to be consistent in showing the courts they actively defend their copy right.

[thaumasiotes]

> Not sure about YouTube but WordPress does not allow the use of the name.

They may not like it, but they don't have the power to disallow you from using their name to refer to them. That's allowed.

[chiefalchemist]

Actually, they do. It's copyright. Plenty of legal precedent. They defend WordPress, but are willing to allow WP.

The law is on their side.

[thaumasiotes]

> Actually, they do.

No, they don't.

> It's copyright.

No, it isn't. It's trademark. There is no such concept as copyright in a single word.

> The law is on their side.

Again, no, it isn't.

What was the point of your comment? Why talk if you're not worried about whether what you're saying is true or false?

[chiefalchemist]

Yes. Trademark not copyright. My mistake.

Otherwise: https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/

FFS Relax. It was an oversight on my part. It's minor at best in larger scheme of things. Maybe you're having a tough day? God bless you. But this is nothing to go to the mat over.

You could have just said, "Oh. Maybe you're confusing trademark and copyright?". The last thing the world and HN needs is another high-strung belligerent asshole. That doesn't help anyone, or anything, sans your ego. It's not a good look.

[thaumasiotes]

> Yes. Trademark not copyright. My mistake.

That is your most minor mistake. The much larger one is that you are claiming that the law supports the trademark policy you link to. It doesn't. Everyone remains free to use a trademark belonging to wordpress in order to refer to wordpress.

You are not free to use any such mark - the WordPress Foundation would be on very solid ground in telling you to stop using their graphical logo. But they can't stop you from using "WordPress" in the name of your for-profit company, which you'll note is quite explicitly contrary to their stated policy.

[tmpburning]

These companies tend to rename themselves when they become popular.