2009/4/23 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
"Can a noncommercial critical website use the
trademark of the entity
it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
While I would regard the title of the article as misleading this is
going to be something of a PR problem.
Legally I've not looked at it closely and trademark isn't my thing
although there may be potential to annoy everyone by arguing that the
well documented existence of the "wikipedia loves art" err brand means
there are potential passing off issues.
This is a very interesting case. My layman's view is that their
lawyers make some excellent points. Obviously, I haven't seen Mike
Godwin's comments on the subject (Wikipedia Art hasn't published them
due to not having his permission) and I can't really judge the
arguments having only seen one side, but at first glance it seems to
be legitimate fair use (or whatever the legal term is).