trademark is used to allow the consumers not to be fooled about the quality of a product. By placing a trademark very similar to the Paramount Pictures one in a DVD of another company, the consumers could potentially be fooled. Thus it would potentially be a trademark violation. By doing it in Inkscape, which is something from a totally distinct field, cannot fool anybody, so there is no problem in making such a reference.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 19:18, Leandro Regueiro <leandro.regueiro@...5...> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Felipe Sanches <juca@...253...> wrote: >> trademark is used to allow the consumers not to be fooled about the quality >> of a product. By placing a trademark very similar to the Paramount Pictures >> one in a DVD of another company, the consumers could potentially be fooled. >> Thus it would potentially be a trademark violation. By doing it in Inkscape, >> which is something from a totally distinct field, cannot fool anybody, so >> there is no problem in making such a reference. > > OK, I change from #2 to #3 Leandro, I think you might have misunderstood what Felipe was saying. He said this case (#2) is not a trademark violation.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 19:24, Leandro Regueiro <leandro.regueiro@...5...> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:22 PM, helix84 <helix84@...150...> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 19:18, Leandro Regueiro >> <leandro.regueiro@...5...> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Felipe Sanches <juca@...253...> wrote: >>>> trademark is used to allow the consumers not to be fooled about the quality >>>> of a product. By placing a trademark very similar to the Paramount Pictures >>>> one in a DVD of another company, the consumers could potentially be fooled. >>>> Thus it would potentially be a trademark violation. By doing it in Inkscape, >>>> which is something from a totally distinct field, cannot fool anybody, so >>>> there is no problem in making such a reference. >>> >>> OK, I change from #2 to #3 >> >> Leandro, I think you might have misunderstood what Felipe was saying. >> He said this case (#2) is not a trademark violation. > > You are implying that I change because I misunderstood what Felipe wrote :) Yes, because you quoted him. It didn't make any other sense to me :)

It appears that #2 is the winner. Here is a version w/ the spray tool and the newer logo. Let's figure out what else needs to be changed. Cheers, Josh