Copyright

Maybe because a trademark in an image associates the supplier to the image, its content and the ideas the photographer is conveying. These may not be conducive to attracting purchasers.

The Trade Marks Act 1994 is the relevant legislation.

You cannot infringe a trade mark unless you "use" it. Regarding a photograph of some product that displays the manufacturer's trade mark as being "use" of the trade mark is, I think, eccentric. If this were actually true in law then no one would be able to sell anything on Ebay or review a product online, in a magazine or on television without obtaining permission to photograph it. This just doesn't happen.

I think the main intention behind the Trade Marks Act is to prevent the counterfeiting of products.


Andrew

I am not even allowed to mention that motor company started by Mr Henry T or any of their subsidiaries that they may own, including a japanese manufacturer & a french manufacturer & an english 4 wheel drive company, due to a previous trademark infringement with them.

I don't want to get into it here, but it cost me cash & I am not allowed to publish their name on the internet.

Don't mess with trademarks they will bite you hard!!!

If any of you are in the volkswagen scene you will see lots of products t shirts, posters etc of split screen campers etc, look carefully & most will not have the VW logo on the front, or it will have been repalced with a CND logo.

If there is a visible VW logo on a T-shirt or poster and it could be construed as an attempt to use that logo to promote the product, without permission, then it would be an infringement of the trademark. Similarly, if someone put a Ford or Land Rover oval logo on the front cover of a calendar showing photos of cars then that's an obvious infringement too, because it implies that the calendar is associated with, supplied by, approved by (or whatever) the owner of the trademark when it isn't. These, to me, seem to be obvious examples of infringements of a trademark.


Andrew