The type of disclaimer you would want to use would depend
on the situation you are in. For example employees at firms at
their blogs put in a disclaimer saying the blog is their own personal opinion, not the opinion of the company, and the blog was created on personal not company time.

If you go to www.eff.org and go to the search box type in "disclaimers", you will get a whole series of situations discussed that are happening now concerning how people are using their disclaimers.

TechAdvisor, a legal blog, has a legal disclaimer on the site which complies with the Multistate Rules of Professional Responsibility that all lawyers must disclose, and the site has threads discussing disclaimers in relation to blogs.

When you are mentioning a trademark however, it seems that you are now heading into the libel and slander area and truth is a defense under the law, but then you are going to start talking about saving some bucks to hire a lawyer or defense team.

Here is a disclaimer found on the tech law advisor blog:
techlawadvisor.com/2003/12/...tory.html

'The views expressed on this site are solely those of the author.They do not necessarily represent the views of his employer, girlfriend, family members, friends, neighbors, pets,
strangers, stuffed, animals, or Joe Pesci."

Funny, but we need something that can work. Maybe a draft:

The information expressed in this blog is solely that of the author
who is exercising his/her right to free speech. Any reference to
trademarks or copyrights is unintentional except insofar as they have already been expressed elsewhere on the internet by others in which case the information is fair use. In that case, the author cannot vouch for the veracity of the facts expressed herein, and expresses no opinion on the truth or falsity of said facts. Readers are encouraged to do their own investigation and not take this blog's word for it.


I don't know if this will fly. Maybe it goes too far or far enough

Here is the fair use statute in the US:

"17 USCS § 107 (2004)

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS §§ 106 and 106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

The fair use doctrine has been applied to trademarks:
KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC., PETITIONER v. LASTING IMPRESSION I, INC., ET AL.

No. 03-409

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

2004 U.S. LEXIS 8170

Even commenting on products would be protected by free speech
and or the fair use doctrine. It seems that the only grounds a corporation would have against you would be if your statements
are false and made in bad faith.

Here is a revised sample disclaimer:

The views expressed in this blog are protected by the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution , and the
fair use doctrine. Any statements regarding any trademarks or
copyrights are made within the parameters of all applicable laws

By visiting this we site you agree to the following terms:
1. Prior to instituting any litigation, you must write to
the author in order to resolve any problems. If any problem
cannot be resolved, the matter must be submitted to arbitration.

2. Failure to comply with(1.) will preclude you from bringing any
lawsuit against the author.

3. Jurisdiction will lie where the author resides.

4. You must post a bond of $1million dollars, should the matter
proceed to litigation.

There, this is just a draft. Maybe submit this to a couple of lawyers or the eff. This is just a suggestion and does not constitute legal advice.

I agree with Randy in his post, that Bloggers must unite, and setting up a Blogger Legal Defense Fund would be a good idea.

unrelated to politics