Slashdot Mirror
More Fun With "For Dummies" Trademarks
tonescope wrote to us with a fun narrative from Oz about Corporate Standover Tactics for Dummies in which Octapod, a small non-profit arts group has done a fun job of cataloging the dialogue between them and IDG Books. In the same vein, check out our first story about this as well.
As someone who was writing books back then, I'd like to clear up a BIG misconception in this post. When IDG launched the "for Dummies" book series, it was because they were the first to actually take the final step to do so. When the first "for Dummies" book came out, that book concept (and variations of that specific title, btw) had been proposed to various publishers by somewhere over 100 different authors. IDG did NOT invent the phrase, or even the book concept. All they did was accept some book author's proposal, which took off like a rocket (they were NOT expecting it to do so well - the success of the series was a complete surprise to IDG). That they followed up, and marketed the hell out of the book concept is good execution. But to give them credit for "inventing" the whole "for Dummies" thing? Gimme a break.
Of course, we're talking about Australia here, which has totally different trademark laws, so it's rather irrelevant. Still, I'm tempted to put up an "IDG lawyer baiting for dummies" page on my web site with true-life examples of how to bait IDG lawyers into acting like idiots :-).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
But if I want to put up a non-commercial site called "Macintosh Follies" or "Baiting IDG Lawyers for Dummies", that's protected use under the trademark law, because I am not using it in commerce -- i.e., there are no goods, services, or moneys changing hands.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
As for free stuff on the Internet being competition against printed "how to" guides published by IDG, awe, poor baby! Unfortunately, "competition" != "commercial". Without an exchange of goods, services, or money, there is no sale insofar as contract law is concerned, and if there is no sale, there is no commerce. A gift does *NOT* qualify as commerce, BTW, because it is one way (no exchange).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I suggest you quit trying to snow people with your shady two-stepping. If there is no exchange of goods, services, or money, there is no commerce. A gift (giving away something for free, with no good or service received in exchange) is *NOT* commerce.
This isn't rocket science. This is Business Law 101. That's why the relative renting my land in Louisiana pays me $1 per year for the privilige... otherwise, there would not be a valid contractual transaction, no commerce, and various nasty legal consequences that I won't go into here (issues of liability for his actions, basically).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The Aussie site, with the fantastic parody book cover, is parodying *after the fact*. Their original web page wasn't at all a parody.
Correct. It was not protected as a parody, it was protected by virtue of being non-commercial. Now it's protected by being non-commercial AND a parody.
It may have been intended to be non-commercial, but it still failed under 4.A: the Internet certainly can be considered to be comparitively promotional, and offering advice in a humourous manner does compete with the "for Dummies" series.
4.A does not protect that use, but they don't have to meet a, b, AND c, just a, b, OR c. Thus, the attack was unnecessary, and had it gone to court, they could have won ONLY by default when the defendant could not afford justice in court. That's why I have a problem with it.
And the real problem is that Stallman can't now call for boycott of "for Dummies" books, because no person worth calling to would read, let alone buy, book with such a title anyway.
And anyway, there's a new trend of "Complete Idiot's guide to...". The next ones should be "Hydrocephal's Encyclopedy", "Dumbass Guide" and "Imbecile MSCE preparation course"... I love such a desire for truth from those people, even if they let it go only in a bookstore.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Personally, I'm glad Jon Katz didn't get involved in the letter-writing. Not only would it contravene the Geneva Convention, the web-site would have become a deadly weapon, capable of mass destruction of brain tissue.
I =DO= agree that simple, gramatically-correct phrases made from words in an existing dictionary and used in a syntactically and semantically meaningful way should NOT be trademarkable. There is FAR too great a risk of accidental "guilt" and control over free speech. (The 1st Ammendment doesn't protect you, as it's only concern is with Government control, not corporate.)
IMHO, it's cases like this that convince me that trademarks would be better =AS= marks or symbols, not words or phrases. Under those conditions, the brand would be uniquely identifiable, but there wouldn't be all this confusion.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Subject: IDG's relationship to me and others
To: IDrewelow@idgbooks.com
Date: 07 May 2000 15:24:29 -0500
[ An open letter. Anyone has permission to redistribute this letter, verbatim, for no fee. ]
Dear Isabelle:
I am an author that has just completed my first book with IDG, the Linux Programming Bible. I had been very pleased with the way IDG handled the book, process, and legal matters -- until now.
It came to my attention today that you personally, and IDG in general, are sending threatening letters to many members of the Free Software community (of which I am a part) that happen to use the phrase "for dummies" in casual conversation, e-mail, or the title of a webpage.
I must vehemently object to this harassment of my colleagues. These things pose zero risk and no possibility of confusion with your series. If they were printed and sold in bookstores with a yellow cover, I'd easily support your claim.
I feel that this attempt at censoring people that are just trying to do good in the world is despicable and feel that I will have to re-evaluate my future plans to write additional titles with a company that actively is trying to crush members of the Linux community unfortunate enough to use a common English phrase in the course of their daily communications or online documentation.
The specific cases to which I refer include the "Real Beginner's Guide to CVS" guide, which happened to mention farther down that it is "affectionately known as 'CVS for dummies'". I additionally noticed a post on the Slashdot.Org online forum today where you are apparently going after a non-profit group in Australia for using the phrase on a website.
I am left to wonder if I myself may be the target of your pressures by unwittingly using a phrase such as "for dummies" on my own website, in my own e-mail communications, or even on the phone.
I would ask at this time that you ceasee this unwarranted harassment of the good people on the Internet and instead focus on the people that are actually trying to harm you, if any.
I additionally consider it only proper to inform you that I have created a webpage containing the words "for dummies" at http://www.complete.org/news/957731761/index_html
Sincerely,
John Goerzen
jgoerzen@complete.org
References:
One site you succeeded in bullying.
Today's Slashdot story.
An earlier Slashdot story detailing your attempts to censor e-mail.
Which details other cases of your oppression.
Another person you succeeded in censoring.
"For Dummies" is a stupid series of books with a stupid title, IMO, but obviously successful for IDG. You can't tell me that people that made up a site or whatever entired "blah blah for Dummies" weren't inspired to do so by IDG's books.
Sure I can. When I was an undergrad in the late '80s (before IDG) we used to refer to the courses given by department X for non-majors as X for dummies. (Statistics for Dummies, Physics for Dummies, etc.) You can't tell me that IDG wasn't inspired to call their books "for dummies" by exactly this usage.
Jesus, what part of "the law says they *MUST* do this" don't you understand?
It's not a choice. If IDG does not enforce their trademark, they *completely lose* their trademark.
At which point even a knob like you would be able to publish a bright yellow book with garish black graphics titled "How to Masturbate Yourself to Success for Dummies," thus causing confusion in the marketplace.
And if you actually took a minute, you'd discover that the legal department of IDG was bloody polite and patient.
The problem is not with IDG. It is with the law: it is stupidly written and forces companies to take action that they would, in all likelyhood, prefer to turn a blind eye to.
The only point you make that is at all legitimate is that it *is* appalling that a series that insults its readers can be so successful. That, however, would be more a failing of "How to Keep Your Self Respect for Complete Fucking Halfwits" consumer public.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
IDG owns copyright of the "For Dummies" phrase for use on 'Books and Printed Matters.'
IANAL, but I rather suspect that the court interpretation of this is that you can not use that phrase as part of a title; and that there's a good chance that you can't use it in body text in a way that suggests that it is the title of a work.
I'm quite sure you can use it in speech, in parody, and in off-hand comments like "ILOVEYOU is a virus for dummies!"
IDG just has to make sure that it isn't used in a way that implies that the phrase is part of the title of a published work. Otherwise, they can't control the use of the phrase in the use of titles. Which, in turn, means anyone can create a "for Dummies" series in competition with them.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I suggest YOU READ POSTS before you post.
The phrase "for Dummies" was not in common usage before 1991, when IDG started using it in the title of their books.
It is in common usage *because* IDG uses it, not in spite of them.
If you were to read some of the higher-ranked previous postings for this article, you will, in fact, discover that this point has been made previously.
I apologise for saying that you masturbate.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Non-profits are *not* explicitly excluded. Just because Mountain Equipment Co-op, a co-operative outdoor equipment supplier, is non-profit, does *NOT* mean that they can name their house-brand boots "Scarpa", their semi-permeable raingear system "Gore-Tex" nor their low-impact handbook "Hiking for Dummies".
And nor does "not making money from it" necessarily count. Though the original web page was not for-profit, it was distinctly in competition with IDG Books, in that it was a published "how to" guide.
Once again, IDG's legal council is absolutely correct in understanding that they must insist that their trademark not be used as a title for a publication, lest they lose control of their trademark.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
It was used in one or two book titles. It was not in common usage. The phrase "it makes your mouth smile" is certainly a phrase that has seen occasional use -- but that does not prevent Nabisco from trademarking it for some cracker product or other.
So, fact: IDG owns the trademark.
Fact: They must insist that it not be used in a manner that dilutes their trademark.
Fact: They can and will keep a trademark on it, because they did think to trademark it before you or I did.
Period. It's theirs, all the way. If there is a problem, it is with the law, not with IDG, who has been nothing but polite and patient in their letters to web page owners.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I wish I could move some of my +5 marks to the above posting: it's the first I've seen that has a comprehensive counter-argument that has some grounding in reality.
If anyone has a moderator point or two left, *PLEASE* mark CBM's post up! It's needed to counterbalance my own posts!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Touche'.
However, IDG's beef isn't with things like the fantastic spoof that Aussie site did with a fake book cover.
It was with another work, which certainly doesn't seem to be a parody. It's a more-or-less accurate description of how to do screenprinting. It is mildly amusing, but it certainly isn't a parody.
It may have been intended to be non-commercial, but it still failed under 4.A: the Internet certainly can be considered to be comparitively promotional, and offering advice in a humourous manner does compete with the "for Dummies" series.
Again, IDG gains bugger all in harassing people. But they *must* do it, because the law demands it.
The *law* is the ass, not IDG!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Ah, but you're not off the hook that easily. I'm enjoying mental masturbation this morning, and you're my willing co-stroker!
1) Yes, it was a published work. It was published on the Internet.
Note that IDG is not protesting the parody book cover that leads into the site. They are protesting a how-to guide titled "How to Screenprint for Dummies." IDG's "for Dummies" books are how-to guides, and so this Internet-published work directly competes with their product line.
2) IDG owns the use of the "for Dummies" phrase for use as a title. I don't think there's anything they could do about someone releasing scalpels and bonesaws under a "Brain Surgery for Dummies Home Trepanning Kit" brand name. Though I could be completely wrong about that. Point is, they certainly do have to be concerned about the use of their phrase as a title for publications -- and web pages are a publication.
3) Pick up a writers magazine. You'll find you're dead wrong: all companies are zealously protecting their trademarks/brand names, because if they don't, they lose them.
The problem isn't with IDG. It's with the law. IDG's hands are pretty much tied: they gotta do what they gotta do.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
See comment in other half of the thread for the original posting.
Basically, publication of "how to" guides on the Internet is competition against printed "how to" guides published by IDG. Hence, it's wrong to title your "how to" guide using IDG's trademark.
Just as it is illegal to create a new, free operating system and name it... oh, say, Linux or Windows. Just because it's free/freely available doesn't mean it's non-commercial and free of trademark restrictions.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I believe the satire laws do apply.
The Aussie site, with the fantastic parody book cover, is parodying *after the fact*. Their original web page wasn't at all a parody.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Jon 'maddog' Hall, author of "Linux For Dummies," speak and explain your PoV. How can you, as an advocate of Free Software and therefore Free Speech, lend your name to a company that does this to people?
Andrew G. Feinberg
The phrase "for Dummies" was not in common usage before 1991, when IDG started using it in the title of their books.
It is in common usage *because* IDG uses it, not in spite of them.
It was used in book titles before IDG used it.
Since you seemed to be missing all the posts of examples, I thought a direct reply might be in order.
You can't keep a trademark on something just because you thought of trademarking it first. Other people were using that phrase *IN BOOK TITLES* before IDG ever thought about using it.
Period. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
--
Actually, I don't think KFC would have a case, as their name is NOT Kentucky Fried Chicken. AFAIK (IANAL (Yet)) the courts decided that you could not make an acronym a trademark, so if the letters stand for anything, they are not protected. Hence there was alot of name changing going on for awhile, i.e.
Kentucky Friend Chicken changed its name to KFC
International Business Machines changed to IBM
Silicon Graphics Inc. changed to SGI Inc.
Public Broadcasting Service Inc. changed to PBS Inc.
I don't know whether the newly named companies are able to register the OLD names as trademarks, but that's why you never see the long names around anymore.
Mycroft-X
Also, the value of "X for Dummies" is that it identifies books that require no prior knowledge and little effort to get a job done. Well, there are lots of books like that, many of them much better than "X for Dummies". So, let people know about good alternatives and recommend them on your web pages. As in
That's both a very useful and a perfectly legal use of a trademark. Of course, if the "for Dummies" book is actually the best, give it credit.Since a web discussion forum doesn't usually constitute a product, it isn't covered and IDG doesn't have a leg to stand on (other than by intimidation).
Furthermore, it's questionable whether companies ought to be able to protect parts of trademarks or whether there is any basis for that in trademark law. They don't have trademark on "SMART_HOSTS for Dummies", so it is questionable whether they can claim that trademark at all, even if this were a trademark issue.
Noncommercial use doesn't "infringe", so IDG is under no obligation to "police" the use of that phrase. And trademark protection for common English phrases (like "for dummies" is) is limited anyway.
I'm as big a fan of satire as anyone, but in IDG's defense, one of the great satirists of all time, Ambrose Bierce, was badly bitten by a failure to protect his 'title theme'
Bierce's 'Devils Dictionary' (modern title) mocks society so trenchantly that it's hard to believe parts of it were published as early as 1881
His newspaper made him use the more reverent "Cynic's Word Book" as a title for his column and his wit became so famous and popular that by the time his book came out, the world had been flooded with The Cynic's This, The Cynic's That, and The Cynic's T'other. His book, swamped out by its own imitators, sold poorly.
It's public domain now (available at e-text sites -- alas, many also distribute stripped down demo versions of modern commercial e-packagings. Make sure you get the complete original). Though some of his quips suffer from over a century of unattributed borrowing, there are still gems on every page. It would have been a best seller, if people could find it among all the dross.
"... for Dummies" may not deserve the same accolades, but if IDG chooses to use this amusing (well, it was amusing in 1991) demarcation for its series, it's just as valid as SAMS, PhotoFacts or Chilton's. Half the reason people want to call themselves '... for dummies' is to steal a bit of (now tired) wit -- which pretty much tells you what to expect from the rest of their 'parody' or 'instructions'. The fact is, most '...for Dummies' like most "Cynic's Whatnot", are just capitalizing on the popularity of someone else's concept.
That's not to say that some of the parodies aren't quite good -- but it wouldn't be hard to change the title a bit, for *greater* parody effect. Stealing the trademarked element of the title is neither essential, nor particularly clever.
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Okay, I can understand all the stuff about owning trademarks, but sheesh... gimme a break! I must have missed the original story, or else I plum forgot about it. As sad as it is for the folks getting the letters, it is funny.
I got such a letter a few years back when I was having a fight with Jones Intercable. They did not fix my cable to my satisfaction, then they never showed up when they were supposed to, so I set up the Jones Intercable Sucks website. I took their logo and modified it. It was pretty funny looking actually - if you never saw their logo it was kind of a movie marqee looking thing with a satellite dish.
Well, I made the satellite dish look like something you would find at the worst of junk yards, and I really messed the movie sign looking part up. It was quite a piece of work actually. I was proud.
Well, the site was up for like two weeks when I got this email from them demanding I take the image off there. I guess they did not appreciate my joke - but it was their own fault as far as I was concerned. They started it when they were giving crappy service. The image was truely a work of parody - nothing more, which I explained to them. They did not seem to understand.
Well, to show them some good will I did take the logo down, but I kept it just in case. They had the cable fixed a few days later. I dropped the cable completely six months later and went to Dish Network.
I am still proud of my "trademark infringement" because it sure as hell got their attention - especially when it showed up as one of the first ten documents when you did a search for Jones Intercable on almost all of the search engines. I think it was usually right below "Investor Relations" or something.
Some folks just have no sense of humor...
But only if a violation is occurring! And PARODY and SATIRE are NOT violations, and their lawyers should damn well know this! Therefore, there is nothing requiring defending.
Trademarks have nothing to do with what you can say only what you can title things. I can't start making TVs and calling them "Sonys", I can't stat a company called "Sun" with and OS called "Solaris". I can't make a website called "Slashdot." Why should I be able to?
There is no restrictions on thought inherent in this, you are still allowed to think, and speak, publish documents with the words in it, you just can use the words in naming your own products.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Dude, I could not write a bunch of crap code in an OS and call it 'solaris', or take mySQL and sell it as IBM DB/2, that would be stupid. Why should people be able to title there websites "whatever for dummies"? Its a perfictly valid trademark, and it dosn't stop you from using the word, just nameing stuff after it.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Perhaps if you'd read the article before spouting of you would know that they are not attacking a parody site, they politely asked a site called "Screen printing for dummies" to change its name.
Really, What the hell is so hard about doing like, 3 minutes of research before making completely uninformed posts about something? I'm surprised your post hasn't been modded up as 'insightful' yet. It is so fucking annoying to see post, after uninformed post spouting completely useless, wrong garbage. Why is it so hard for you people to even bother to learn what's actually occurring? Its as simple as following a link!
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is a prime example (along with things like etoy, and the suing of clan MacDonald), of why trademark law is just as rotten as its "Intellectual property" cousins patent law and copyright law. The simple fact is that, regardless of their intentions, the final result of ALL of these things is censorship.
People claim that Trademark law is around to protect customers from falsely branded products, which sounds noble enough, until you consider that nobody ever bothered to ask the individual consumer whether he wanted to be protected or not. Somebody just decided that the poor stupid consumer needed this protection, and so it should be forced on everyone.
In my case, I don't want to be protected against confusing other books with IDG's "For Dummies" series, just like I don't want to be protected from confusing art collectives with toy stores or family trees with hamburgers. But society has decided that I should be just the same.
It is completely doable today, using OCR and Digital Signatures, to create a product that scans webpages and images for trademarks and checks meta-data for the trademark owners signature. No law would be necessary, and the user could himself decide what level of protection he wanted from confusion (none, a small warning text, full suppression) and which trademarks he cared about being protected from otherpeople using. But how many people here think that if such a product came out tomorrow, the companies that today tell you that Trademark law is "for your protection [naive little inferior person]" would be OK with abandoning it on the web?
Not one, because like patents and copyrights, trademarks are no longer about protecting comsumers or society. They are about protecting the interests and power of the capitocratic society, and keeping the individuals as the dumb consuming machines the corporations need us to be.
I say screw them.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Now, mind you, this was a humor site that is now known as Cthulu for Morons
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
What? You mean ABC hasn't copyrighted the words "Who wants to"? I bet it won't be long, then.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
bah. s/copyright/trademark/g
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Oh come on, do a little homework before you're off kissing corporate ass. Not only is for' dummies' common english words and not original creations they've been used a million times in print and belong to a title of a book from the 70's.
Second, satire, parody, and reference allow the use of trademarks/copyrights with both commercial and non-commercial uses.
This gets even worse when non-profit or personal web pages use the term and IDG, and other corporate bullies, get to show off their legal muscle.
I don't buy 'we're protecting our TMs' line, when most uses fall under fair use. The issue is about making sure customers get to the proper IDG website when they type the words 'For Dummies' into any search engine and not some site that might give them free information of *gasp* criticize their product or politics.
Every outlet that sells IDG's for dummies books has another set of books with the same bright neon lettering/font about the exact same topics written for the exact same demographic except they're called 'The complete idiot's guide to...'
I've always seen this as a ripoff of IDG that might confuse some consumers, but the lawsuit will never happen as the Idiot's guide people will point out 'for dummies' has had lots of prior use and marketing books to people who consider themselves clueless is nothing new. Because Idiot's guide has money for litigation they're left alone.
IDG will pick on the non-corporate entities because they are completely defenseless. This has nothing to do with protecting trademarks, its about controling what comes out of a search engine after you type 'for dummies' into it and trying to build credibility with an obviously fake, stolen, and unoriginal trademark.
If I came out with a soap right now called 'Hi Bob' and sued everyone who used these words in an e-mail or placed it on a website, on the grounds that if people could get away with saying 'Hi Bob' all of the time any old fool could release 'Hi Bob' soaps at a lower price and destroy my investment, then would I still have your support?
Perhaps this is indeed the fault of the law that if I was dumb enough to hinge my entire branding on a relatively common phrase, I would be obliged to harass people to keep my trademark - but that begs the issue, why should I be allowed to make that a trademark? Its not like Xerox, Linux or Kleenex - which were unique words unlikely to be said by anyone with coherent speech, and are 'brand names' because they are a UNIQUE differentiator.
Other posts rightly point out that a number of educational books and car repair books with 'for dummies' came out first. They didn't seem so bothered about IDG doing it. Perhaps they have a decent product.
Now, if my 'Hi Bob' soap had a picture of my Bob character on the packaging, and Hi Bob was written in a particular color/typeface combination, and someone came out with something roughly similar and tried to sell it, then I should go after them, no question - its a deliberate attempt to rip me off. Were the sites in question blatant attempts to rip IDG off? Hardly.
So, I do not think that those two words are a valid basis for a trademark any more than 'Hi Bob' is a trademark. McDonalds sued a scotsman called McDonald for opening a shop here bearing his own name, and won. Who do you think came up with THAT name first? Does someone called McDonald have the right to open a shop bearing his name?
If I remember, a man called Ronald McDonald had a go at McDonalds for infringing his personal 'brand' but he lost, probably because he does not have the same legal power in $$$
I'm behind these guys all the way. As people, if we do not set a precadent defending ourselves, then companies will steadily trademark ever more catchy sayings, until the use of the English language becomes a legal minefield for both marketers and normal people alike.
The other day I saw "Sex for Dummies" and "Parenting for Dummies." I kid you not. Apparently even though there are laws against trademark infringement etc, there are none against irreparably harming the evolution of the species for corporate gain. I don't know about you, but the last demographic I want breeding are the people who buy "... for Dummies" books.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Pardon: Are you saying that "Pegasus Mail" was also named or commonly known by the term 'pmail'? If so, then yeah, they had a right to ask him to change the name.
[ NH goes away to do some homework after the fact... so he can provide a definitive clear explanation of the circumstances of this obscure topic.. like someone should have done in the beginning instead of rambling on as though everyone in the planet knows the details about what is being talked about :) ]
Ok, I've easily found Scott Bender's pmail, and it looks like he's being forced to change his package name as well. The pmail domain is owned by David Harris and his free Pegasus Mail, which he claims was first released in 1990. David's site doesn't refer to Pegasus Mail by the term pmail, other than pmail being in the name of the downloadable files, and other than having the domain name.
However at some other scattered sites where Pegasus Mail is mentioned, the term pmail is used to refer to it.
Hmmmmm. Looks like there is another commercial product called pmail, over here. Not a full e-mail client. But e-mail related.
Here is another pmail package, from Be.com, developed by a Dennis Ryan.
Then there is Personal Mail (pmail.net), which turns up in my search. (Goofballs, if I have javascript turned off I get a page of white text on a white background.)
None the less, it is clear that the users of Pegasus Mail do refer to it by the name 'pmail'. This was not adequately clear in any of the other messages.
Personally I can easily see how others could 'miss' pmail, aka Pegasus Mail, in a search for 'prior use'. I've never heard of it before, and I've been on the net since 1992. If I did a search for pmail and found what I found above, I would have presumed that pmail was a commonly used name without a firm claim on it. Especially since the official Pegasus Mail pages do not refer to itself as pmail. And 95% of the sites that refered to Pegasus Mail as pmail were in a foreign language, if I hadn't paid close attention to them, I might have missed the connection between Pegasus Mail and pmail all together.
Cheers
I don't think so, but everybody knows that 'Nerds' are a sugar coated sugar candy, which naturally means we may get sued for using the word.
Opinions Expressed by Me should be Forced on Others - PbHead
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
Dear Mr. FFFish,
I am writing you to inform you that you are in violation of my companies (BigCo, Inc) trademark of the phrase "more or less." - As most know, the term "more or less" has, for over 10 years, been associated with BigCo. If you, an average slashdot poster, do not remove your post containing the terms described above, we will be forced to threaten to sic our lawyers on you...and, thusly, you will realize that we have a helluvalot more money than you - and so it's cheaper for you to bow to our will, rather than lose every cent you have paying your lawyers to fight for what is actually right (@ right, and all terms associated with right are a registered trademark of BigCo.)
Sincerely,
Dick McCheese
BigCo, Inc.
Ummmm - we're talking about a piece of the fucking language. Just because people weren't using the term "for dummies" as a joke/buzzword prior to 1991 doesn't mean that IDG can just grab a trademark on it...honestly...this is just ri-goddamn-diculous.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Trademarks that are diluted into generic terms go to the public domain.
Will I retire or break 10K?
rocks for jocks
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I think this is really a free speech issue. We're not talking about a competing product here, just Joe Shmoe using a trademarked phrase.
The usual corporate butt-kissers will say "this isn't a free speech issue, the gov't isn't doing this". Bollocks. Neither I (nor octopod) has signed any contract with IDG...but if we use those "for dummies" words and persist, IDG will use the power of the courts to try and shut us up. Who gave IDG the right to do that?
How is that different from Janet Reno hauling you into court for publishing stuff the gov't finds embarassing? Oh, I guess the person prosecuting the case is better paid, and it only takes a majority of jurors rather than all of them to screw you over
Violating the 1st Amendment for Dummies
"The government allows free speech. We've subcontracted the enforcement to the private sector, since they don't have these quaint restrictions."
I've got a whole new line of businesses to start...
MacDonald's
Burger Prince
Jack in the Can
Alabama Fried Chicken
Cmdr Taco Bell
Wendy's... (A WHORE!)
Long Dong Silver's
Dead Lobster
Starfucks
Dairy Queer
Just asking...
Which part of "law which requires the owner of a trademark to protect it against "erosion" and/or dilution" didn't you understand?
I understand that completely. What part of:
"The following shall not be actionable under this section:
...do IDG's legal council not understand? I agree that they must dilligently pursue any infringing use, but non-profits are explicitly excluded as are parodies and reporting.
The morons at Pegasus Mail demanded that I rename
my program "pmail" because they thought it was
confusingly similar to their product name. They
had an even weaker case, but unfortunately
because I can't afford a lawyer, said evil people
won. Grrr.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I wonder if the opinions of the /. readership would be different if a new company named O'rily published a booked called "Programming Perl" and it had a 2 humped camel on the cover.
Phrases I'd like to trademark:
We're the F in FU!
X for Syphilitic Monkeys (ie Quantum Field Theory for Syphilitic Monkeys)
Where would you like to go tonight?
Your place or mine?
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Right. But to imply that it is a 'blatant infringement' when satire and parody are CLEARLY NOT INFRINGEMENTS is almost bullying.
They are required to defend their trademark WHEN IT IS BEING INFRINGED UPON. IT CLEARLY IS NOT.
They are required to protect their trademark, or lose it. If you check out the links at the bottom of the page, you'll run across some interesting, such as reference to a book that used "for dummies" before IDG did.
/. readers put up trademark bait for IDG?
Now, the trademark infringement doesn't seem to apply to non-commercial or parody sites. (Or Slashdot, since it's reporting about it.) However, IDG feels it neccessary to chase these people anyway. They're paying people to do this.
So, what would happen to their costs if all the
Credit certainly must given to IDG's lawyers for their politeness. However just because they are polite doesn't mean that one should simply acquiesce. Particularly when the lawyers are wrong in their beliefs about the alleged infringement.
Trademark law specifically excludes non-commercial use of trademarked words, as has been pointed out in other posts in this discussion. So while IDG's request was polite, it certainly was not reasonable. The website owners were clearly within their rights to refuse it.
If you are walking down the street and someone comes up to you and politely requests that you hand over you wallet and all your vauables, should you comply? Or would you be justified in telling them to get lost?
Ideology is for ideots.
. .would companies fight so hard to sell to so many dummies.
___
Once a trademark holder is notified of infrigement, they must protect their trademark or the trademark can be lost. It's not really their choice. I just wonder why any laws protecting satire don't apply here?
Please excuse the ambiguity of my previous post. I was wavering betwixt humor and a real post. But I would like to clarify a couple of things:
1)I am not of the opinion that the "for dummies" trademark should have ever been granted in the first place. "...for dummies" is/was a relatively well used term prior to IDG's trademarking of it. As I said before, while not everyone was using the term, it was most certainly out there...so there's a prior art argument.
2) The real threat of IDG is not in the trademark. That is inconsequential, assume they do have a right to carry this trademark, and they don't have a legal right to infringe upon a non-profit (etc.) organization's ability to use such a term. That's all fine and good - but we're talking about the real world. As happens most often, Company A says to person B, "Take blah down!" Person B says, "Fuck off, I have the right to have blah up!" Company A says "Take it down or we'll sue you." Person B has to think VERY hard about whether or not they want to risk a small fortune to fight off Company A even though they know they're in the clear. It's the old - "do it or we'll bankrupt you in the process" routine.
It's not right...but it's the way things work.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
More than 200 years ago it was decided that parodies are covered by freedom of the press. IDG's legal skylarkings are analogous to ABC suing NBC whenever SNL does a fake millionare episode.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
The last bookstore I owned had heavy O'Reilly traffic. (It's nice to sell something that you can believe in - 98 of my top 150 selling computer titles were O'Reilly). Anyway-- I took the O'Reilly spoof t-shirt design (Porn in a Nutshell) from attrition.org, and made 100 copies to give to our regular customers. When the O'Reilly representative came round, I showed the shirt to her -- and she broke into hysterical laughter. So I gave her 5 of the t-shirts, and asked her to give one to Tim. I figured that if they had a problem, I'd hear about it. No calls, although a couple of her colleagues sent an email to thank me. Later that year, Tim O'Reilly himself dropped by during a party for Eric Raymond. The t-shirt was prominently displayed on the wall -- and not a complaint was heard. Draw your own conclusions.
Being a "victim" of an IDG cease and desist campaign, i would like to correct the notion that they only go after commercial, non-parody, "infringing" sites.
I used to host a webpage called "Unified Field Theory for XXXXX" (XXXXX being something i'm restricting from saying, due to "trademark" law). This was hosted at an EDU (non-commercial) site.
This was a CLEAR parody work using a modified version of an IDG book cover.
When i responded to the C&D request (threat) (for which i was given THREE days notice to comply, which is NOT a polite request in my view), I indicated that i considered my work to be covered under the non-commercial and parody clauses. IDG's lawyer responded that there was no such thing, and again demanded that i comply (again with a 3-day allowance).
When i yet again replied that this was clearly a parody work, i was told that since IDG's "...for dummies(tm)" series was itself a humorous entity, a "parody" claim could not be held.
This is utter and complete bullshit, but i, as many common low-life, am not ready, willing or able to put up a legal fight. (thus the site came down)
The whole point here is that IDG was trying to supress my clearly negative views about the entire "...for dummies(tm)" series. They can do so because they have a well-funded cadre of highly-paid legal bulldogs. It doesn't matter if they are in the right or not.
remember the "Radio Shack" Tandy holds the trademark rights to the word "Shack" issue? It is a clearly valid criticism of the PTO that they are willing to allow trademark of common language terms. These TM's should NOT be allowed to stand.
BTW, non-commercial alone isn't necessary. See the case of Penthouse magazine's parody "land's end" (iirc) catalog. It was in a commercial context, yet ruled non-infringing.
P.S. this legal bullying is one of the reasons i believe that a substantial portion of punitive damage awards should go toward funding the "public defenders" office instead of just paying off greedy lawyers and plaintiffs. This would help balance out the little guy's ability to stand up to corporate bullying)
I thought the whole reason why products have names like Coca-Cola or Kleenex is that by creating a nonsense word, the word isn't one in common use and so can only refer to the product in question. But "for dummies" hardly originated in 1991. In fact, if the phrase hadn't already been entrenched it would make no sense for IDG to use it in their titles. It's a pity that nobody has dared IDG to sue them.
IDG more or less invented the "for Dummies" phrase. It certainly wasn't in popular use before about 1991, when IDG started publishing the "for Dummies" series.
It is their unique distinguishing product name. Their trademark. And in order to retain ownership of the name, they are legally *required* to send cease-and-desist letters to everyone who titles their works using the "for Dummies" phrase.
Pick up one of those cheap wanna-be-an-author magazines down at the local bookstore. You'll find that three-quarters of the advertising is from companies protecting their trademark: Xerox telling writers to use the phrase "photocopy"; Kleenex telling writers to use the phrase "tissue"; and so on.
It's no different than if someone were to start offering "Red Hat BSD", "SUSE Windows" or the "Slashdot Porn: Sluts for Nerds. Stuff that creams ya!"
Anyway, it's stupid and irresponsible for Slashdot to be resurrecting this non-issue. IDG is doing what IDG *must* do, not what it wants to do. The law is written in a way that forces them into this position.
And by all appearances, they are most polite and patient. Give them a freaking break.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
It might be required by law, yet still be insane.
How many combinations of two words in a common language can I trademark? How many would I require to gain control over (if not how it is used now) how the langauage will develop?
Remember that language is used in forming exact thoughts. If you can not form certain new word combinations, you are restricted of forming an expression. This results in either finding a corresponding alternative expression or not finding a formula for the thought to be expressed as.
Well, if you have read 1984 you know instantly what I'm talking about. It doesn't have to be that bad, but it might still be pretty ugly. Like the fact that ILUVYOU victims are dummies, and it is a Virus for Dummies, yet we may not call it such! So we might not learn of it.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
"For Dummies" is a stupid series of books with a stupid title, IMO, but obviously successful for IDG. You can't tell me that people that made up a site or whatever entired "blah blah for Dummies" weren't inspired to do so by IDG's books.
English is a rich language. Certainly they could come up with something similar that wasn't infringing, like "Screenprinting for braindead titheaded fuckwits" and not have to worry about infringing on some trademark...
Looking over the actual website, it is just me, or is it also difficult for you too to contain sniggers at this whole thing?!
Their pursuit of 'blatant infringement upon IDGB's internationally protected trademark "For Dummies®"' (Perhaps it was the ® at the end?), not to mention the fact that they forced changes to a site about Irish Step Dancing, or that they 'constantly track the web' for 'illegal' occurrences of 'for dummies' sounds like an amusing PR disaster waiting to happen for IDG.
They give the example of hoover being a brand dilution. (In the US I hear a lot of people Vacuum instead of Hoover®). I don't see what problem having everyone think of your brand for something as generic as vaccum cleaners, or for that matter books. As long as it is easy to differentiate a genuine 'for dummies®' from a homage, then they should consider it voluntary brand building - especially from not for profit sites.
If 'For Dummies®' is the first thing I think about when I want an easy technical reference, and I know that those yellow IDG® books are the the originals, then guess what i'm going to buy? Since they are apparently spending so much effort and money building this brand, the name should only be a part of the mix that customers associate with them. If the Irish step dancing site had a yellow background with a sign® etc then perhaps we are coming closer to confusion.
It's not really about protecting us poor consumers from confusion, however - especially in this case, since you would have to view your customers with extreme contempt for their intellegence if they think everything contianing 'For Dummies' is part of their product line, or even a good substitute for what is in their product line.
I agree that if someone came into the technical books market with a 'for profit' product, or even something that was on sale for any kind of money, and it copied the visual branding aspects as well as the name, then they should have some right to stop it, to protect market share.
But treating customers with contempt, by implying their sheer stupidity, and by acting like a bully® in one of the principal forums where their brand equity matters, is both insensitive and stupid. The more people they harass about this on the internet, the faster the word is going to spread that these people are total arseholes.
So, I suggest that all us Dummies® exercise our market power and intellegence and go and buy something different in future when we need to learn or teach someone about something. Spread the word.
Apparently, IDG only has a case against for-profit organizations. Here's a quote from the page:
It seems that IDG was either unaware of this or felt that people's ignorance of the law or fear of litigation would allow their tactics to prevail.IDG's use of "phantom" trademarks may not be allowed. Phantom marks are those that contain elements unspecified at application time, like ".... for Dummies." Apparently trademark applicants are allowed only one trademark name per application.
I found this little tidbit in a USPTO newsletter here.
There are still a few questions. If IDG already had their application approved by the USPTO, it may be harder for "infringers" to defend against it, even with the court ruling. Also, IDG may have legitimate claims to specific titles like "The Internet for Dummies" or even just "For Dummies," but anything "for Dummies" seems right out. As the federal court says, such phantom marks do not serve the public good, since there are too many potential infringing variations.
I did a search on Melvyl, which searches all the UC's, and also Stanford and a couple other universities' libraries. I found three pre-IDG uses of "for dummies" in the title of a book.
;c28 cm.
Author: Sclar, Deanna.
Title: Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical
advisor. New York : McGraw Hill, c1976.
Author: Sclar, Deanna.
Title: Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical
advisor. Rev. ed. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1983.
Author: Winenger, Dwight.
Title: Music for dummies / Dwight Winenger. Desert Hot Springs, Ca. :
Minuscule University Press, c1981.
Someone ought to buy the rights to "Music for Dummies" and use it for a music web site. I'm sure it would really piss off IDG, since it isn't going to be good for public relations to sue someone who was using their "trademark" before they were.
I found one book using "for Dummies" published in 1997. I'm curious what IDG has done about this. My guess is that it's non-commercial, and so out of their reach.
Author: Morebeck, Nancy Justus.
Title: Census for dummies : a quick guide "by example" to use indexes,
soundex, CDs and the census ; includes a soundex coding card /
by Nancy Justus Morebeck. Vacaville, CA : N. Morebeck, c1997.
Description: [7] leaves : chiefly ill.
Notes: Title from cover.
What's interesting is who is the author of the Auto Repair for Dummies published back in 1976:
1. Sclar, Deanna.
Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical advisor.
New York : McGraw Hill, c1976.
2. Sclar, Deanna.
Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical advisor.
Rev. ed. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1983.
3. Sclar, Deanna.
Buying a car for dummies / by Deanna Sclar. Foster City, CA : IDG Books,
c1998.
Series title: --For dummies.
She's now writing for IDG.