The website, like the press conference, is designed to confuse people, but only temporarily. This is where it differs fundamentally from the material that trademark law is designed to prevent -- the Yes Men WANT to be found out. That's how they get their message out. It doesn't do them any good to really trick people into thinking that the Chamber of Commerce has changed its stance on climate change; they want people to believe it only long enough to be outraged when they discover that the real Chamber hasn't actually done anything at all.
There's nothing in law to indicate whether this sort of use of trademarks is (or should be) protected, and (not that I'm a lawyer, but) I know of no case law on the subject.
(untitled comment)
This is where they should respond the way British newspapers do: publish a story about how they were blocked from publishing a story about the issue.
(untitled comment)
The website, like the press conference, is designed to confuse people, but only temporarily. This is where it differs fundamentally from the material that trademark law is designed to prevent -- the Yes Men WANT to be found out. That's how they get their message out. It doesn't do them any good to really trick people into thinking that the Chamber of Commerce has changed its stance on climate change; they want people to believe it only long enough to be outraged when they discover that the real Chamber hasn't actually done anything at all.
There's nothing in law to indicate whether this sort of use of trademarks is (or should be) protected, and (not that I'm a lawyer, but) I know of no case law on the subject.