Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Fun With "For Dummies" Trademarks

Posted by Hemos on from the jeez-lousie dept.

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.

9 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. How can "for dummies" be trademarked? by Jonathan · · Score: 4

    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.

  2. How about a *fact* or two? by FFFish · · Score: 4

    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.
    1. Re:How about a *fact* or two? by psaltes · · Score: 5

      Auto Repair for Dummies
      Hardcover 2nd edition (March 1990)
      Ten Speed Pr; [NOT by IDGB and published prior to their products] ISBN: 0070558841

      from http://www.users.one.se/~feltby/idgb_s mells/

  3. How much of a Language can be Owned? by korpiq · · Score: 4


    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.
  4. Politeness obviously never works... by weave · · Score: 4
    Interesting reading. Unlike other heavy-handed companies, IDG's first attempts to solve the matter were polite and reasonable. Even when they were asked for more questions and asked for additional time until their mid-December meeting, they were given it. Not until two months after that did a lawyer get involved and start threatening them.

    "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...

  5. Hahahaha - hand them PR For Dummies� by di'jital · · Score: 4

    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.

  6. Don't Roll Over Easily by Doc+Technical · · Score: 5
    A few links down in the featured article, the author references a link to "CVS for Dummies", a site that received a similar letter from IDG.

    Apparently, IDG only has a case against for-profit organizations. Here's a quote from the page:

    The provisions of the 1995 Trademark Dilution act are, in a nutshell, that

    "The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled to injunctive relief against another person's commercial use of a mark or trade name if such use causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark."

    But

    "... to be actionable the use must not fall within any of the statutory exemptions. Under the Act, 'fair use' of a mark in comparative advertising, 'non- commercial' use of a mark, and news reporting and commentary are not actionable."

    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.

  7. "Phantom" Marks not Allowed? by CBM · · Score: 5

    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.

    Trademark applicants may not register phantom marks: The Federal Circuit upheld the Board's refusal to register a phantom trademark in In re International Flavors, 51 USPQ2d 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A phantom trademark is "one in which an integral portion of the mark is generally represented by a blank or dashed line acting as a placeholder for a generic term or symbol that changes, depending on the use of the mark." International Flavors sought to register "LIVING XXXX FLAVORS," "LIVING XXXX FLAVOR," and "LIVING XXXX," where the "XXXX" serves to denote a specific herb, fruit, plant, or vegetable. The phantom marks would provide protection for such marks as "LIVING STRAWBERRY FLAVOR" and "LIVING CILANTRO FLAVOR." Thus, the applications sought to obtain registration of a potentially unlimited number of marks. The examining attorney refused registration of the marks, and the Board affirmed. International Flavors appealed to the Federal Circuit.

    The Federal Circuit agreed with the Commissioner that under the Lanham Act and the rules pertaining to it, a trademark application may seek to register only a single mark. The court therefore saw no reason to disturb the Board's finding that International Flavors sought to register multiple marks in violation of the one-mark-per-application requirement of the Lanham Act.

    The Federal Circuit further explained that federal registration benefits the market by providing constructive notice to the public of the registrant's ownership of the mark, thus preventing innocent misappropriation of the mark as a defense to an infringement charge. Phantom marks with missing elements fail to provide meaningful constructive notice to the public because they encompass too many combinations to make a thorough and effective search possible. Finally, the court also rejected International Flavors' argument that the PTO's failure to register the phantom marks denied it due process or equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

    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.

  8. Pre-IDG "for Dummies" titles by kevin805 · · Score: 5

    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.

    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. ;c28 cm.

    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.