Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Serious Fights Yahoo! trademark
fsck writes "Australian actor Yahoo Serious is fighting Internet portal Yahoo! for the trademark to the word Yahoo, registered with the Australian Trade Marks Office in August. Yahoo! was founded in 1994, whereas Yahoo Serious changed his name by deed poll in 1980. It sounds as though Mr Serious is, among other things, tired of receiving any more misdirected Yahoo! snail mail." The levels of comedy to this are astounding.
If you read the link, it finds in favor of Yahoo.com. Pertinent info below:
From the Australian Trade Marks Office:
Yahoo Serious v Yahoo! Inc [2001] ATMO 74 (13 August 2001)
The evidence shows that Mr Serious does not use his name, Yahoo Serious, or his forename, to distinguish goods or services. It is true that he writes, directs and produces motion picture films in which he stars; however, it is not apparent in the evidence that either of the words `Yahoo Serious', or the word `Yahoo' are used as a trade mark in relation to the films. The closest that I can find in the evidence to use of any sign that might be as a trade mark is the repeated use of the words, a `Serious Production' or `Serious Entertainment' on promotional material associated with the motion pictures. However, this use is obviously of no assistance to Mr Serious as the opposed trade mark is the word YAHOO! and I therefore do not have to decide whether this use of the word SERIOUS is as a trade mark.
there are 2 kinds of people. those who divide people into 2 kinds, and those who don't.
He can't understand how a name that he has used, has been identified with him, been exposed worldwide, how someone can come along and simply take that," he said. "We're wanting to preserve his right to use the name Yahoo."
Chrysiliou said his client, who changed his name by deed poll in 1980, was widely known and had been extensively publicised as Yahoo.
What this article isn't mentioning is that, now that Serious has gotten Yahoo! involved in litigation as a publicity stunt, he IS violating their copyright by using Yahoo!'s fame to get his own name in the newspaper.
I wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo! seized royalties from this guy's sales of previous and future work.
Don't poke the lion, boy.
Goat sex free since 2001
I'm surprised you haven't heard of him. He's pretty well known. His movies are fun to watch. Sort of a cross between Ed Wood and Paul Hogan.
Who is Sir Donald Bradman Indeed! Ok It may just be that im australian, but Sir Donald Bradman is one of the Australias most famous cricketers. Born in 1908 in SA (south australia) , with a test average of 99.94, and in all the tests in which he played, in he scored a total of close to 7000 runs.
Sadly Sir Don passed away in august 2000. he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia. one of may great australians. but then I guess most Americans wouldnt know of him, let alone Cricket.
You have to remember that trademarks have context, meaning that they're only valid in relation to the primary function of the registrant company. This is why we can have a Delta Airlines, a Delta Electronics, and a Delta Faucets without any of them suing the others. So unless Mr. Serious is a website (not has a website), he doesn't have much legal ground.
There was a resturaunt in Vancouver called De Niro's. Robert De Niro took them to court saying they were infringing on his copyright by calling the resturaunt by that name. He won and as a result the resturaunt changed it's name to "Section 11" or something, the section of the copyright act he sued them under..... So there are precedents of similar things happening.
fsck, actually, according to the webpage, the LAWSUIT between Yahoo Serious and Yahoo! was filed in August, not the trademark by Yahoo! which was originally filed in 1996. Yahoo Serious may lose since he is supposed to (under trademark law) oppose any filing well before the 4 year period. At least, that's the way it works in the U.S... im sure australia has a similar case.
First, we should all keep in mind that this is Australian law, so YMMV.
:-)
However, it is not axiomatic that you have a (trademark) right to your own name. Ever heard of "Taylor Wine", a fairly large upstate-NY winery that markets inexpensive table wine? It was a family-owned business. In the late 70s, two brothers that ran the business had a falling out. One brother decided to run his own business, and incorporated "Taylor" into the name.
Much sueing occurred -- and the court ruled that the original Taylor could prevent the new Taylor from using the FAMILY NAME in his business (and, presumably, anyone else who wanted to use "Taylor" in relationship to a winery). The fact that it was his name didn't carry any weight. I believe there have been several other similar cases, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.
FYI, if you want to know the outcome -- Taylor #2 renamed his winery "Bully Hill" (I believe the original winery was on a hill...), and continued to do business. I left upstate NY in '90, so I don't know how much success they've achieved. Neither wines were particularly good
Now, I believe Linus holds the trademark for "Linux". Could you open a company called "Linus Torvalds Operating Systems, Inc" ? Maybe.
Of course, making computers that suck is another matter
(Actually (IMHO), the VAX computers of the time were damn good machines. Sears sold the VAX vacuum cleaners here and they really sucked, which is a good thing for a vacuum cleaner)
We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
>Here in Sweden, we had a similar case when H&M, the international clothing company, launched it's
m /inrikes24.html
>label LOGG a couple of years ago.
>The Logg family sued, and won. H&M had to change the name of the label to "L.O.G.G. (Label Of
>Graded Goods)".
>So really, this is no joke - it's serious (no pun intended).
This is true... except the fact that the Logg family LOST.
If you can read swedish see http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/9807/07/telegra
I believe that lawsuit was a result of an agreement made between the two that said that Apple Records was to be used for anything "that makes sounds." Adding sound capability to their line of computers (something they probably never thought of when they made the agreement) got Apple into trouble.
It is at these fringe overlaps that people get into trouble. As others pointed out, Yahoo! Movies is a good example.
No, no one is going to confuse a bad actor and a web portal, but people can confuse Yahoo! Movies with Yahoo Serious Movies.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Actually, Scott.com is a great example - it is NOT owned by the paper products company - it is owned by Scott Software Systems, Inc which is a one-man show run by a guy named Gregory Scott. In fact, the paper products company with the same name DID try to sue him, but because his last name was Scott and he was using the site for legitimate business (not trying to rip off the trademark) he got to keep it.
(I knew wbout this because of the old "friend of a friend")
The Digital Sorceress
First, the story is that Yahoo Serious is appealing the August decision.
Secondly, Yahoo! the company has registered a trademark in Australia for use in, amongst other things, "Entertainment services including television programmes". On the face of it, he may have a case that using "Yahoo!" as a trademark in the entertainment industry would be "confusingly similar" to his name, even though he has not trademarked his name.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
According to IMDB, his birth name is Greg Pead ... must have been a rough childhood.