Okay, so after my previous post I did a bit more poking around. I think I understand why Mars Hill sent the letter … check it out.
Here’s a screen shot of the website for Mars Hill Seattle:
And here’s a screen shot of the website for Mars Hill Sacramento:
Here’s a screen shot of the logo for Mars Hill Seattle:
Here’s a screen shot of the logo for Mars Hill Sacramento:
Mars Hill Seattle’s action makes a bit more sense now. The cease and desist letter may not have been about the name as that guy’s blog post led me to believe – instead it may be about one church taking another churches’ artwork and brand.
That casts this whole thing in a different light for me, and, if I were a person who’d worked for years to solidify a brand, I would be really upset if an outside group starting using it themselves.
That being said, I still don’t think Mars Hill Seattle should sue, but I can certainly understand their being angry at this other group, and can also understand their sending the letter. I think I was a little too quick to jump on the bandwagon with my previous post.
Using a copyrighted brand is against the law, therefore a sin. The Sacramento group’s brand is very similar to MH Seattle’s.
So who’s in the right in this situation, or are both parties wrong? What do you think?