- 1. I am at least 18 years of age.
- 2. I will not redistribute any material from this site.
- 3. I will not allow any minors to access this site or any material found herein.
- 4. Any material I download from this site is for my own personal use, I will not show it to a minor.
- 5. Sexually explicit material depicting bondage, S/M and other fetish activities is allowed by the local law governing my region.
- 6. I was not contacted by the suppliers of this material and I willingly choose to download it.
- 7. I agree that pictures depicting men or women being penetrated by objects such as vibrators or dildos, is not obscene or offensive in any way. In addition I do not believe that such material could be considered obscene or offensive.
- 8. I have carefully read the above and agree to all of them
This information is provided for a dual purpose–to demonstrate the fact that the relevant marketplace and channels of trade are constrained by the eight conditions above (hereinafter "the Eight Conditions") and to demonstrate that this is not a mark that is distributed to a general audience, nor that requires protection outside of the audience and marketplace delineated by the Eight Conditions.
It is well-established that determinations under trademark law hinge upon the definition of the relevant marketplace or "channels of trade."[1] To enter the channel of trade for the Applicant's goods and services, a potential consumer will have ample fair warning that he or she is about to enter a realm of sexual expression. The relevant marketplace—limited by the description of services—is essentially the "red light district" of the online media world. In that
- ↑ See, e.g., M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communs., Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (no likelihood of confusion when identical marks were used to brand products in different channels of trade); PC Club v. Primex Techs., Inc., 32 Fed. Appx. 576, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (degree of care potential consumers will exercise when purchasing one product over another can mitigate likelihood of confusion); Bell Laboratories, Inc. v. Colonial Products, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 542, 544 (D. Fla. 1986) (marketing channels used is operative to the likelihood of confusion analysis); University of Georgia Athletic Association v. Laite, 756 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir.1985) (same).
17
