Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Preliminary Injunction Against SuSE

Posted by Hemos on from the time-to-get-out-the-fish dept.

Random Walk writes "The German news site Heise Online reports that on behalf of an anonymous client, a lawyer has won a preliminary injunction (German only) against the Linux distributor SuSE. The injunction forbids the delivery of SuSE CDs as long as they contain some program name that apparently violates a registered trademark. No more details available, but SuSE seems to be in negotiations with the other party." Head over to the fish for translation.

3 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Killustrator again? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember the Adobe vs Killustrator case? That was in Germany too. Someone said that it's common practice for legal firms to act 'freelance' and track down supposed violations without the prior approval of the trademark holder. Perhaps this is the same firm even.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  2. Gravenreuth by nr1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but this Gravenreuth guy, the attorney, is one of the most hated men in the German IT scene. He has been going to court over cases like these for at least ten years.
    I once got a letter from him: Back in the old Amiga days, i posted a classified ad somewhere, since i wanted to sell some of my old hardware. A couple of days later, I got a letter from some girl (including picture), who listed some of her games and wanted to trade.
    Back then, I heard of these Gravenreuth tactics, so I just threw it away. Even writing some witty response on the illegality of the proposal would have probably invited some action from the law firm.

  3. lawyer: nope, butcould be estoppel by hawk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I am a lawyer, but am probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice, but a statement of general principles. If you apply this to your own situation, you are a moron.


    Entrapment is a criminal doctrine, not civil. It applies to the police going too far--convincing someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not (simply asking or offering the crime isn't enough.). THink of Delorean (sp?). The goverment harassed a man with a failing business with repeated opportunities to commit a lucrative time, after repeatedly being told no. They *created* the criminal. This is a far cry from a one time offer.


    WHile this doesn't apply, the doctrine of "estoppel" could potentially apply. In a nutshell, this doctrine says, "even though you may be legally correct, your own conduct makes it inequitable for you to be able to make that argument, so you can't."


    It would probably be a close call as described above.


    hawk, common law lawyer