Slashdot Mirror

You do realize that a trademark holder has a legal obligation to defend their trademark, right?

I don't know how this concept is still overlooked by someone with such a low UID. This dead horse has been beaten far too long for someone truly interested in the subject matter to not know this. This is the legal version of a science denier.

It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit. They can afford really good lawyers. Trademark infringement cases have been won on shakier grounds.

That's not nearly enough for Google to win a lawsuit. Just because your brand is hurt -- for example, by every news agency in the world reporting that you've cheated on emissions tests -- does not mean that you can sue for trademark infringement.

To infringe a trademark, the accused infringer must be using the trademark in commerce:

15 U.S.C. 1125
(a)(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
* * *
(c)(1) Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the ownerâ(TM)s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.

News reporting is commerce, but is usually exempt from the potential infringement issue due to the first amendment and the concept of nominative fair use. To report upon businesses and products, you pretty much have to use trademarks to efficiently refer to them.

All snark aside, politics is not commerce. I don't see any indication from any of the summary's links that she's even selling items like hats, T-shirts, buttons, and other items. Which leaves you with a nebulous theory of "trademark dilution." But if you look even further down in the dilution subsection there's an exception for "Any noncommercial use of a mark." Which reemphasizes the fact that you can only control commercial uses of a trademark.

Thus, no. Google would be fools to take this to court, and really good lawyers would advise them that it is a really bad idea. Someone may get the bright idea to send a nasty letter, but Sue Googe would be an even bigger fool to pay attention to it. A lawsuit would provide the sort of publicity and news exposure that money cannot buy, and what exactly can Google claim for monetary damages? Come November, the campaign is over and any lawsuit would be dropped for being more trouble than it was worth.

Incorrect, even the most technically inept person on the internet could've Google'd fair use in trademark law to see that it's actually a thing. There's even a place that covers various jurisdictions interpretation of it!

http://www.inta.org/TrademarkB...

Congratulations on trying to be an internet big man and failing hard. Literally.

Yeah, there's a separate set of doctrines around "famous marks", which may have protection in all domains. So you can't call your new operating system Coca-Cola OS unless it's actually approved/licensed by Coke, despite that company not currently having any interest in the OS market.

It seems to me that since you're now admitting that other solutions rather than litigation might be preferable, in other words, that it's not an "open and shut case" as you previously asserted, then we're done. But, regarding the statutory issue you raised, I'd suggest taking a look at this article, where it points out that the provision of the Lanham Act which you cited, S 43(a)(1)(B) contains the requirement

that the challenged description or representation be made “in commercial advertising
or promotion.” That provision was added to address First
Amendment concerns by excluding from the reach of
Section 43(a)(1)(B) “political promotion” and “‘consumer or
editorial content, parodies, satires, or other constitutionally
protected material.’”...Perhaps for this reason, the courts—to the extent they
consider the statutory language at all—frequently focus on
whether a defendant is engaged in advertising or promotion,
rather than on whether the challenged description or
representation is commercial speech.

In other words, there's only a violation under sub(B) of this statute when "advertising or promotion" is taking place. MS Forefront Threat Management Gateway isn't for the purpose of advertising or promotion; it's arguably a type of editorial service. And sub(A) doesn't really apply here, it's more concerning a situation where say hypothetically Microsoft had started referring to itself as the "Fun Software Foundation" so they could start saying "Richard Stallman loves us. We're the FSF, after all."

As well, see here. I still contend that none of this stuff has anything to do with making a mistake in rating a website.

I don't think 50+% of the people are actually opposed to copyright. They're just opposed to it being used as an excuse for harmful DRM and other complications. They want to see their movies and play their games, and don't mind paying for them if they're any good, but paying lots of money for crap that doesn't work gets tired really fast.

So true. I know an important member of INTA http://www.inta.org/ who would pay any money to see some certain Chinese films... only there's no legal way to get them !!! So he shamefully asked a relative to pirate them.

My uncle has a great DVD player.. but he had to buy a cheap DVD player because his "great" DVD player doesn't show his DVDs so well on his big LCD (I've just read in another post that DVD players don't upconvert some copyrighted DVD's, that most likely the cause).

The IDIOTIC pratice of trying to separate by zone DVD releases to maximize profit and some other political turf wars means VERY EAGER customers turn to pirated versions.

Personally, there is a TON of content I would buy if only people sold it to me !!! (living in Uruguay is hard if you want English or German or Japanese-language stuff).

Considering they passed a special law, prior art really has nothing to do with it. In the US, the Olympics long ago go a heinous law passed that gave them trademark rights on things you couldn't normally trademark. They didn't go so far as the anthem, but you cannot legally put the name "Olympic" in your business. Who cares of the thousands of years of prior art. This came to my attention when they recently forced the band named the Olympic Hopefuls to change. And it was, unfortunately, all very legal of them to do so.

Here's the law:
http://www.inta.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=187&Itemid=59&getcontent=1

Here's a story on the band:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507047/20050805/index.jhtml

It depends.

If I simply draw just the ford logo it isn't protected by copyright, as it fails to meet the minimum standards of originality. Specifically, titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs cannot be copyrighted

Now if I draw a picture of a mustang (or Ford produces any concept or product drawings, photos, or brochures) that specific work is copyrighted. That does not mean that I can't copy the logo because it is included in a copyrighted work somewhere (which is what you said).

Trademarks are specifically not covered by copyright. I can copy the ford logo deliberately and without permission, directly from their site and reuse it on my site, provided the use of the mark is made in good faith for the purpose of merely describing the goods or services to which the mark relates or to accurately indicate compatibility with another's goods or services.

I guess Audi never got the memo.

Neither did this bank.

I'm sure there are more out there. But I'm not sure you are accurate on this. Check out the International Trademarks Association site for more information found here.

The Olympic trademarks protected by statute (36 U.S.C. 220506(c)) include: the name "UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE"; the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of five interlocking rings; the words "Olympic, " "Olympiad" and "Citius Altius Fortius," and also the words "Paralympic," "Paralympiad," "Pan-American" and "America Espirito Sport Fraternite," or any combination of these words; the emblem of the United States Olympic Committee, consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on the base with five interlocking rings displayed on the chief; and the symbols of the International Paralympic Committee and the Pan-American Sports Organization, consisting of a torch surrounded by concentric rings.

By statute, the USOC may file a civil action against any person if that person, without consent of the USOC, uses the Olympic trademarks for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition. A showing of actual consumer confusion, or even a likelihood of such confusion, is not necessary for the USOC to prevail. ... The USOC is also not required to show that an unauthorized use of the Olympic trademarks is occurring in connection with goods or services similar to those on which the USOC has previously authorized use.

So "Tiger" isn't a generic term? (generic term) "Tiger Direct" is not a generic term because it is two words together. Are they arguing that TigerDirect will lose business because Tiger OSX will confuse people about their business and that Apple intended that? If I was a Lawyer I might understand why this would even be filed but I'm not so I don't.

It's a trade dress issue. See: this at the INTA website.

They did not say a word about using the plural.

1. What are the Olympic trademarks?

The Olympic trademarks protected by statute (36 U.S.C. 220506(c)) include: the name "UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE"; the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of five interlocking rings; the words "Olympic, " "Olympiad" and "Citius Altius Fortius," and also the words "Paralympic," "Paralympiad," "Pan-American" and "America Espirito Sport Fraternite," or any combination of these words; the emblem of the United States Olympic Committee, consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on the base with five interlocking rings displayed on the chief; and the symbols of the International Paralympic Committee and the Pan-American Sports Organization, consisting of a torch surrounded by concentric rings.
loc. cit.

And later on, they even grant permission ...

4. Are there exceptions to these rights?
The word Olympic may be used, without sanction, to identify a business or goods or services if:
1. such use is not combined with any of the Olympic trademarks

Pepsi obviously is not an Olympic trademark :)

CC.

Hrm... I think if you read a bit more carefully, as you'd see that she is located in the UK... I don't think that USPTO searches will help in that case.

It doesn't matter that she's in the UK because 1) Penguin's the one claiming rights (and they'd register everywhere if necessary, being an international company), 2) these things are generally protected by international treaty and 3), I couldn't find it in the UK either.

Seems like Penguin doesn't have the rights they think they do. And I don't believe book titles are automatically trademarked - I've seem some that were, making me believe the rest likely aren't by default.

Acutally Congress has siphoned off large amounts of revenue from the USPTO for ages, regulations be damned. There was some recent talk about eliminating this practice so that USPTO could actually afford to hire competent and numerous patent examiners but AFAIK this hasn't happened yet. Here is a quote from the international trademark association from 2002:

"Last year, approximately $44 million of USPTO revenue was diverted. The year before that, the final number was $116 million." link

They must be trying to make up for the
Madrid Protocol
where now you have a direct means of applying for registration in 60 countries throughout Europe, Asia, Latin and South America by filing a single application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
hmmmm......

Doesn't "Google" use as a verb dilute its trademark value? (Something like that happened to Xerox).

Today, Aspirin® is a registered trademark of Bayer AG in Germany and more than 80 other countries. In countries where Aspirin® is not protected by trademark status, such as the United States, the term Aspirin® can be used generically for all products containing the active substance acetylsalicylic acid. However, genuine Aspirin®, renowned the world over, is only available with the Bayer Cross.

After WWI the trademark was lost by Germany in the USA, UK and France (the victors) where aspirin has entered the language as a generic name. In 1994 Bayer bought back the Bayer Aspirin trademark in the USA from Sterling Drug, who had held it since 1918.

• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.

• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.

• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.

• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.

• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.

The reader will judge for themselves, decide if the beliefs enclosed in this response and on WIPO.org.uk are truth or hot air. You are welcome to try disproving these logical findings. The USPTO and DoC could not.

Please concentrate on the points raised - not the poor writing style. Do not be diverted from these points.

This addresses that which the authorities hide - the solution to trademark and domain name problems.

The authorities and legal profession do not to want it solved, for reasons of money and power - which is why I email interested parties.

The Internet is so important for many things - including people getting their voice heard. This Interim Report is for another small-minded, control-freakery, anti-libertarian policy, designed (amongst other reasons below) to stop free speech.

Trademarks have ® symbol placed after them for a reason. Why then, do they not use new TLD of .REG for this?

® symbol is warning, to advise the public that the mark is federally registered and their use provides legal benefits - http://www.inta.org/basics/tmfaq.shtml#faq6

What about trademarks 'raison d'être'? - Do you know what it is?

They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words.

To use Attorneys words, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace".

Most of the current problems are due to the authorities perverted and twisted sense of protectionism towards big business trademarks.

Most trademarks share its name or initials with many others. When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they are either devoid of intelligence or corrupt.

What other reason is there?

Brief comment on some of WIPO replies received:

Some give sycophantic congratulations on your success - do they mean success of:

a) Usurping domain from the original legal owner?
b) Giving one trademark holder dominance, over others with the same name?

Proprietary - Belonging to a proprietor. Proprietor - An owner; one who has legal right to anything. So, how can you legally stop anybody using these [Non proprietary] words?

Geographical - "Barcelona.com" etc. The DNS is like a giant library index system. Do they claim I.P. rights and royalties from books written about these places? They will be claiming I.P. rights on maps next.

IGOs - Protection will only censor public criticism and allow them to abuse power.

Personal Names - It is not justice that any one person has sole right to use of a name. Out of principle, the reason I did not take GarryAnderson.com. My name is as important to me, as yours is to you. I RECOGNISE that others may have the same name as me - and that others may wish to make critical comment. There is solution to the famous having own domain name.

Trade Names - More of the same. Abuse of power - when you know the answer.
Main arguments are best summarized in my response to Nominet UK. They are Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The Dispute Resolution Service went under review.

Sent 30 March 2001 to Nominet UK:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk)

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there) [skilful is proper English spelling ;-) mentioned so that critics could not pass me off as somebody of low intelligence (tried before)]. The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."

Saying [and read in context], "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone [879 live]. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in. [Obviously, some hide the lie - for self interest].

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1 Trademark Name
2 Classification
3 Country
4 Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD [trademark tax].

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.
There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:

1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.

TM is something you can decide to use yourself.
(R) means registered and must be actually registered with the relevant registration office.

I found this TM FAQ that gives more info.

And more importantly, how do we get the judicial system to have a clue?

So now I'll sit back and let everybody tell me why I'm wrong.

Well, you could start by learning the difference between a trademark and a copyright.