Jeep is the undisputed king of cranking out concept vehicles that could 100% be made production vehicles but will absolutely never happen. 

Its cool.

It’s a big red flag, but not necessarily on behalf of the car. it could also be that she stepped out at the last possible second - maybe such that braking was impossible. Maybe she stepped *into* the car and was clipped.

Maybe the sensors failed. But we don’t know yet.

In reality, pedestrians have been getting struck and killed on the daily for the better part of the last 100 years. These cars have been on the road for a couple years and this is the first time this tragic scenario has taken place. I think that autonomous cars are already safer than human drivers, and still have a…

You can’t test for human behavior in sanitized conditions.

I don’t think driverless tech can account for the stupidity and unpredictability of man. Sounds like the woman unexpectedly walked into the street not at a crosswalk. Odds are she would have been killed by a human driver too.

#corrections: “Happily, one was hurt, and we got this amazing photograph.”

He’s not generating money directly from the branding. He’s producing videos of a restoration project that also includes editorial content.

So Nike can sue him for that huge swoosh on his sweatshirt in the video? The main concern is intent to confuse consumers. He isn’t selling pizzas so there is no confusion that conflicts with Domino’s business.

He’s not using it commerically to deliever pizzas. It’s being used as an odd ball car on videos about cars. It’s the equal of restoring an old plane with its original colors and then showing it to people on TV, not flying it commercially.

How does a Domino’s logo suggest sponsorship, but a Chevy Bowtie does not?

Gargleheinz makes the correct point. This is no different that making a monetized YouTube video about vehicle restoration using a salvaged Jurassic Park M-Class.

Sold at auction “as-is.” The stipulations are on the onus of the auctioneer, which makes Domino’s claims to IP infringement moot, since they gave the car away “as-is” instead of dismantling it first.

Domino’s sold him the IP when they sold him the car.

Except he’s not deceiving anyone into thinking he is associated with the company whatsoever. The car also has a Chevy logo, how is that any different?

It also has a Chevy logo on it. Is every car channel on Youtube infringing copyrights then?

Surely, In this case, Dominos put the livery on out and then sold it with that livery. It’s as if Chevy said you can no longer operate the Chevy you bought because of the Chevy badges on it.

Domino’s isn’t in the business of making YouTube videos, so their trademark shouldn’t apply. If Sam was trying to sell pizza or other fast-food products using their trade dress, then sure, he’d be stepping on their trademark. But as it stands? No. That’s absurd.

If you are making money from your use of their trademarks, then yeah they can do a lot of shit. Your example has nothing to do with what is happening in the article.

Heck yeah, ban all cars until the NHTSA comes up with personal deflector shields to keep us all safe.