Statement on Fair use and Fair dealing – US and UK/EU

The following is a legal statement on fair use regarding the use of copyrights and trademarked logos on our comparison pages on this website, which is designed to assist consumers in making informed decisions about various products or services. This statement is intended to address the legal considerations of both the United States and the United Kingdom/EU.

The following is intended to address any concerns of commercial usages of logos or trademarks within any of Bare Metal Email’s articles or landing page materials.

JurisdictionFair Use (Copyright)Trademark Law
United States– Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107.– The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1141n).
United Kingdom– Section 29 (Fair dealing for research, private study, criticism, review, and news reporting) – Section 30 (Fair dealing for instruction or examination) – Section 171 (Fair dealing for caricature, parody, or pastiche)– Trade Marks Act 1994, which covers registered trademarks, infringement, revocation, and invalidation of trademarks.

Bare Metal Email recognizes the importance of intellectual property rights and is committed to abiding by the copyright and trademark laws of both the United States and the United Kingdom/EU. We believe that our comparison page serves a valuable purpose in facilitating fair competition and aiding consumers in making informed choices.

In the United States, fair use is a doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without the copyright owner’s permission. To determine whether a use qualifies as fair use, the following factors are generally considered:

The purpose and character of the use: Our comparison page is non-commercial and educational in nature, aimed at providing consumers with factual information to aid their decision-making. This aligns with the transformative and non-commercial aspects of fair use.

The nature of the copyrighted work: We are mindful to use only factual information and avoid using the core, creative aspects of copyrighted works. Our comparisons are based on objective criteria, not creative content.

The amount and substantiality of the portion used: We use only the minimal amount of copyrighted material necessary to serve our educational purpose, and we do not use the "heart" of the copyrighted works.

The effect on the market value of the original work: Our comparison page does not substitute for the original works. Rather, it enhances consumers' understanding and helps them make more informed choices.

In the United Kingdom which also covers the European Union, there are similar principles of fair dealing, which allow for limited use of copyrighted material without infringing on copyright owners’ rights. Our comparison page aligns with the fair dealing principles as it aims to provide factual information for the benefit of consumers.

Regarding trademarked and copyrighted logos, it is essential to distinguish between nominative use and infringing use. We employ nominative use, which means we use trademarked logos to accurately identify and compare products or services. We do not intend to imply any endorsement or sponsorship by the trademark owners.

While we are confident that our comparison page falls within the bounds of fair use and fair dealing, we are open to addressing any concerns or requests for modification from copyright and trademark owners to maintain a cooperative and respectful approach to intellectual property rights.

We state that at the time of publication 22/10/23 all our comparison materials across our entire website were as accurate as possible using the most up to date material provided specifically from our competitors websites and marketing materials and not misleading and are for the purposes of education and comparison only.

Furthermore Bare Metal Email states that it retains active council on statements made regarding it’s comparison pages with regards to all 3 key markets we currently operate in and have assessed the following on our Advertising and Comparison pages and our right to use them where we do not mislead or use facts that are not publicly available at the time regarding our competitors:

JurisdictionLaws on Misleading AdvertisingRelevant Caselaw
United StatesThe primary federal law governing misleading advertising is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which prohibits deceptive practices in commerce, including false or misleading advertising. The Lanham Act, under U.S. trademark law, also addresses false advertising related to competitive goods or services.FTC v. Tashman, 318 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003): The court held that the defendant’s deceptive advertising violated the FTC Act, emphasizing the importance of truth in advertising. – Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014): This case involved a dispute over misleading labeling, highlighting the significance of false advertising claims and consumer protection.
European UnionThe EU has harmonized consumer protection laws, and misleading advertising is addressed through the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC), which prohibits unfair commercial practices, including misleading advertising. Each EU member state may have its own national laws implementing these directives.L’Oréal SA and Others v. eBay International AG and Others, Case C-324/09 (2011): The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered issues related to misleading advertising and trademark infringements in e-commerce. – Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v. GmbH, Case C-422/16 (2017): The CJEU clarified the use of dairy-related terms in the marketing of plant-based products, addressing issues related to misleading advertising.
United KingdomIn the UK, misleading advertising is regulated under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which implements the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) also enforces advertising codes, which include rules against misleading advertising.ASA v. The London Mint Office Ltd., Case A19-407764 (2019): This case involved misleading advertising about a coin collection’s historical value. The ASA ruled that the ads were misleading and should not be repeated. – L’Oreal (UK) Ltd v. Johnson & Johnson, Case [2017] EWCA Civ 255 (2017): The Court of Appeal considered a dispute related to misleading comparative advertising and upheld the principles of fair competition.

We hope that this fair use statement clarifies our commitment to legal compliance and transparency in our comparison page operations. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our practices, please do not hesitate to reach out to