Fair use in a digital age

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Fair use in a digital age

The concept of fair use is not a new one, but some companies with business models built on the mobile Internet are adopting more relaxed approaches to the use of their marks.

Panelists from yesterday’s session Is Fair Use Always Fair? International Approaches to Fair Use Issues in a Mobile World discussed the evolution of the concept.

Gavin Charlston of Google pointed out that though brand owners sometimes see their trademarks as property rights to be enforced against third parties, the reality is that marks do not operate in a vacuum. Referring to a quote from former U.S. federal appellate court Judge Alex Kozinski, he said that trademarks become part of a common language and that everyone, including third parties, have a right to use them to communicate in truthful and non-misleading ways.

Sung-Nam Kim of Kim & Chang in Seoul explained the basic framework behind nominative fair use, where a third party uses a trademark to refer to the product or service of the trademark holder. In the U.S. and several other countries, courts look at whether the third party’s product is readily identifiable without use of the trademark, whether the degree of use exceeds what is necessary, and whether use of the mark falsely suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.

Kim pointed out that under this test, the use of another company’s logos may be problematic in many cases because it can be argued that the use may exceed what is necessary to convey information.

The situation may be different in the mobile world. Andrea Sander of Microsoft explained that as consumers migrate toward mobile devices with smaller screens, logos may in many cases be the best way to convey the necessary information.

Some Internet companies also encourage third parties to use their logos and marks. Stephen Jadie Coates of Twitter explained that his company encourages third parties to use its unmodified blue bird logo or the word “tweet” to refer to its service. He noted that the company is sometimes even accepting of uses that are not technically compliant with all requirements, especially when there is no suggestion of endorsement or affiliation with Twitter.

Google’s approach to its ANDROID robot logo is even more lenient; the company has adopted a Creative Commons license which allows for modification of the logo. “We firmly believe that it’s the open nature of the logo that has helped to make it so iconic,” Charlston said.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Daniel Raymond, who will serve as head of client relations, tells Managing IP that law firms must offer ‘brave’ opinions if they want to keep winning new business
The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Gift this article