It sounds like what you're saying is, because press releases exist, comparing one company's product to another's by name in a news feature is potentially infringing. Do you actually think that position has a wooden leg to stand on? I don't see how you could possibly read a comparison like this — even if made outside of quotes — as anything but descriptive of IMAX's actual product. I don't think a normal consumer would likely be confused.
> It sounds like what you're saying is, because press releases exist, comparing one company's product to another's by name in a news feature is potentially infringing.
No, that's not what I'm saying. There's a big difference between press releases existing and presented-as-journalistic pieces being essentially paid promotional material for vendors.
> Do you actually think that position has a wooden leg to stand on?
No, which is why I didn't make it.
> I don't see how you could possibly read a comparison like this — even if made outside of quotes — as anything but descriptive of IMAX's actual product.
I don't see how you could read it as descriptive of IMAX's actual product, since there is no actual description of IMAX's product being made. Its clearly a nominative reference; its clearly a statement saying another product is good because its like IMAX's product.
> I don't think a normal consumer would likely be confused.
Perhaps not, but legal actions for violations of trademark rights don't always require that (infringement does, but dilution, which seems the most applicable trademark concern here, does not.)
