I found this shirt on many different sites. Are people just allowed to use the Stack Overflow name wherever they want to sell things?

  • 13
    All those "upload your design & we'll slap it on a shirt/mug/whatever" sites have this problem where the bulk of what they sell are designs incorporating images/font/text they don't actually have permission to use. – BSMP Apr 6 '17 at 14:28
  • But what if you write stack overflow? This is a perfectly normal word (within certain groups). – Trilarion Apr 7 '17 at 7:11
  • 5
    @Trilarion all your StackOverflowException belong to SE. You can't throw or cause one without violating trademark :) – Alexei Levenkov Apr 8 '17 at 2:34
  • 6
    I think it is perfectly OK. They are not branding the T-shirt with a trademarked term, they are using it conversationally. Trademarks do not stop people writing trademarks down (or at least they shouldn't). – halfer Apr 8 '17 at 9:10
  • Just because it may not be legally pursued by SE does not mean it is abiding by the law. SE does not compete for merchandise, and thus is probably not very concerned, however, the association of SE with the entity selling these shirts (perhaps there are nefarious connections between said entity and other entities) is the main problem that would arise. This is why, when using trademarked material, you are supposed to obtain permission in order to avoid being shut down for inappropriately representing the trademark. YouTube commercials are going through some pain right now because of this. – Travis J Apr 10 '17 at 22:22

It depends on whether they've asked and received permission. The Trademark Guidance says:

Merchandise/Manufactured Items



If you believe someone is using the name or logo without permission, you may contact the legal team at legal@stackexchange.com
If you are reading this answer in the context of a site scraper, please don't contact the legal team and read this instead.

  • 1
    so should this be reported somewhere so someone can look into whether or not these companies had permission? – SaggingRufus Apr 6 '17 at 11:23
  • 2
    @SaggingRufus I've expanded the answer. – user247702 Apr 6 '17 at 11:33
  • 3
    If this shirt is infringing a trademark it' s more a LucasFilm/Disney one (movie character, text, font...). – xenoid Apr 6 '17 at 12:38
  • 1
    See also: redbubble.com/shop/stack+overflow – Tom Wright Apr 6 '17 at 12:42
  • 1
    @xenoid its probably both tbh – SaggingRufus Apr 6 '17 at 12:46
  • 1
    @TomWright Those with a SO logo are infringing. Those that just mention the name (SO, or IE) aren't. But IANAL. – xenoid Apr 6 '17 at 13:51
  • @xenoid but the Trademark document specifically says you cannot. I assume this was written by lawyers, so they probably know what constitutes infringement. – SaggingRufus Apr 6 '17 at 15:16
  • 3
    @TomWright Those t-shirts suck. – William Isted Apr 6 '17 at 15:25
  • 1
    @WilliamIsted Haha! I'm not going to disagree, but I don't think their suckiness makes them infringe any less. – Tom Wright Apr 6 '17 at 15:26
  • 1
    @TomWright True, I mean, if they're going to infringe copyright / trademark, they could at least put the effort in. – William Isted Apr 6 '17 at 15:27
  • 31
    @SaggingRufus I don't know enough about trademark law to know whether producing a shirt with a joke about Stack Overflow on it requires Stack Overflow's consent or not, but in general, reasoning that "a lawyer wrote a document that said I'm not allowed to do something, therefore the law must be on their side and I'm really not allowed to do it" is a terrible idea; lawyers write down unenforceable (and morally outrageous) terms all the time. – Mark Amery Apr 6 '17 at 15:54
  • 6
    @SaggingRufus 'stack overflow' as a term existed prior to this company, and it's not clear whether they are referring to this company or to the generic computing error, thanks to the font being in all caps. They have much more to worry about from Disney for using a non-negligible portion of the famous scene and phrasing from Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope than they do from Stack Overflow. – TylerH Apr 6 '17 at 19:30
  • 1
    @TylerH The defence of SO not being SO sounds almost like from a lawyer at the court - but I am afraid the logo on the screen is not a prior and and general term. Objection overruled. – Suma Apr 7 '17 at 6:00
  • 5
    This answer seems at least misleading. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that it's completely OK to use the name of Stack Overflow in this context, without asking the company for permission first. (The logo would be a different thing.) – Pekka 웃 Apr 8 '17 at 8:42
  • 1
    @Pekka웃: The T-shirt in question has the logo (on the screen of the laptop). – T.J. Crowder Apr 8 '17 at 21:53

It depends on whether it is legal or not. That may even depend on the origin of the seller/buyer because laws may be different in different countries. I'm not aware of anyone saying it is legal, but that doesn't mean it must be illegal.

Usually the correct estimation of legality is outside of the scope of meta answers. if you wish you could bring it to the attention of the operators of this site and let them decide to pursuit further actions.

In other cases where they also use the site logo it may very probably be illegal. I would always advice against using logos because they are usually protected.


Does Stack Overflow have any less property if someone copies their logo? Is this an act which deprives someone of their life or possessions? If I build a home which looks like my neighbor's, do I deprive him of his home?

I think not.

Natural intellectual property exists in as much as one keeps it secret, or contracts with another party to do as much. When one displays something in the commons the only means by which one has to prevent others from copy it is an entitlement from the violent hand of the coercive state. As no one feels just in putting a gun to another man's head to compel him not to sell a t-shirt with their logo, then no one should ask the state's enforcers to do so on one's behalf.

Using one's "legal team" to extort another man's free market gains in the name of one's state entitlements is no less a theft than any other imposed taxation.

Enter image description here

SEK3 - An Agorist Primer


  • 4
    Please don't just post pictures of text. – Cornstalks Apr 8 '17 at 14:52
  • 1
    I've never understood this side of libertarian and similar philosophies. I mean I understand it from a principled philosophical perspective, but how are content creators (authors, artists, etc.) supposed to make a living when there is no law governing intellectual property? Could this way of thinking not be a relic from a time where content creation and media distribution worked much, much differently than today? Why do you take the concept of physical ownership as a natural given that is ok to defend using state violence - but intellectual ownership is somehow an artificial construct? – Pekka 웃 Apr 9 '17 at 6:39
  • 1
    @Pekka웃 I'm not a libertarian, but "intellectual property" is somewhat of an oxymoron. If you take something physical of mine (be it a sandwich or a piece of land) from me, I no longer have it. If you copy my e-book or program, we still both have it and I cannot in good conscience call that "theft". Intellectual property is more similar to a guarded secret than to defended physical property. – user4815162342 Apr 9 '17 at 6:59
  • 1
    @user but if I take an author's book, scan it, print it, and sell it alongside theirs, I'm depriving them of income they were deriving from their own work. Same goes for copying E-Books and programs. I find it very easy to call that theft, even if it is a bit more abstract than taking away a physical thing from someone. Not disputing there are crazy excesses in modern IP law, but the concept itself as a means for content creators (for lack of a better term) to make an independent living I find hard to object to. – Pekka 웃 Apr 9 '17 at 7:04
  • 1
    It seems to me that the concept of owning physical things - the idea that you can own a plot of land and be entitled to reap its fruits and ask for that right to be defended using state violence (aka "gun to person's head") - is as made up (or in fancy academic terms, a "social construct"), and as valid or invalid, as that of intellectual ownership. It's just been around a little longer. Ultimately, philosophically, all we can really claim ownership of is our own bodies. That's why I have no fundamental problem with the idea of intellectual "property." Happy to hear opposing arguments, though. – Pekka 웃 Apr 9 '17 at 7:09
  • 1
    @Pekka웃 I was just explaining the part about why physical ownership is more natural than intellectual ownership - simply because intellectual ownership can be copied without depriving the original owner of their "property". The fact that the society has found a way of rewarding authors (and their employers) for their work by restricting such copying is maybe commendable for the benefits it brings to society, but not a reason to call it "ownership" or "theft". – user4815162342 Apr 9 '17 at 19:54
  • @user I see what you mean. You have a point there. – Pekka 웃 Apr 10 '17 at 6:36
  • Does one have a Inherent Unalienable Right to a "trademark" as one has to their Life, or is the nature of "trademark" a granted, subjective, legislated, fleeting, special-snowflake entitlement much like food stamps? Do we wish to be governed by laws which bring justice when our Rights to Life and Liberty are infringed or should we choose to be subject to legalities which strip us of our Individual Liberty to promote other men's state entitlements, royalties, and privileges? Given the choice, I choose Freedom. – litepresence Apr 10 '17 at 13:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .