Godzilla Getting Ready to Stomp Mozilla?

mrBlond writes: "Doing the rounds: Seems like Toho [jp], 'the owner of all rights in and to the trademark and service mark GODZILLA [jp] and the GODZILLA characters,' is coming down on Davezilla for use of 'zilla' in his domain name and his dragon logo, to set a precedent before attacking Mozilla."

Comments

Text in case of /.ing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun, 11 August, 2002
Goodbye little dragon guy!
[Blog] - Davezilla @ 07:07:43 pm
re: DAVEZILLA.COM
Dear Mr. Linabury:

We represent Toho Co., Ltd ("Toho") in intellectual property matters. Toho is the owner of all rights in and to the trademark and service mark GODZILLA and the GODZILLA characters. In addition, the name "GODZILLA" and the likeness of Toho's GODZILLA character are federally registered trademarks belonging to Toho. Copies of Toho's U.S. Registrations for GODZILLA and the GODZILLA character image are enclosed.

[Omitted long, dull paragraph about the history of Toho...]

It has come to our attention that you have incorporated the "ZILLA" portion of our client's GODZILLA marks in the name of your "DAVEZILLA.COM" domain name, and that you have included a "reptile-like" character as well as a "monster-like" character, which you refer to as "GODZILLA", on your website accesible through "DAVEZILLA.COM." Please be advised that your use of the GODZILLA mark constitutes a trademark infringement and confuses consumers and the public into believing that your "GODZILLA" character originates from Toho, which it does not. Moreover, your use of the "ZILLA" formative along with imagery associated with GODZILLA is likely to cause the users of your site to believe that the "DAVEZILLA.COM" website is either associated with, authorized by, or sponsored by our client, and demonstrates an attempt by you to trade on the goodwill built up by our client. As such, we request that you remove the objectionable imagery and reference to GODZILLA from your website to eliminate any likelihood of confusion and posibility of an inaccurate affiliation with Toho and GODZILLA.

We look forward to receiving your prompt reply, with a statement of your intentions, no later than August 16, 2002. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Very truly yours,

SEYFARTH SHAW

Jill A. Jacobs

Wow. Guess the little dragon at the top has to go bye-bye. At least they are letting me keep the domain name. A few inaccuracies: I have, until today, never mentioned Godzilla, nor do I have any imagery of him on this site. Nor do I refer to my logo as Godzilla. It's always been, "That little dragon guy." Could have been a lot worse. Expect a new no changes to the banner and changes a tweak to the colophon. I'm not giving in.

No more Green Mozilla.

[jelwell]

This is one of the reasons there's no longer a green Mozilla logo, nor can you buy Mozilla dolls anymore. The owners of godzilla came down on Mozilla long ago.
joe.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[jelwell]

Mozilla is not a non-profit company. See the bug I filed bugzilla, bug 70249 - "Mozilla.org should become a non-profit Organization.". Mozilla is a wholey owned subsidary of AOL Time Warner. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors. Netscape still owns the copyright on Mozilla and owns the Mozilla.org website.

There's been no activity on the bug for some time.

You definately have a good point about names, I don't think they have a foot to stand on when it comes to the name alone.
Joseph Elwell.

It's Gojira you moron

[mocm]

The zilla is only a relict of a misleading transcription of the ji syllable which is the soft form of shi (or si) in the alternate trasncription.
Anyway, the zilla could be an allusion to jirasu (to irritate) ;-)

Word existed before Godzilla

[sdjunky]

Here is Dictionary.com's definition of zilla.

Also, consider that Microsoft didn't win againts Lindows and that's a much closer match since it even pertains to the same kind of item or good e.g. an Operating System

Re:Hard to argue

[seebs]

"fair use" is a feature of copyright law, and refers to specific kinds of usage (not just "anything I feel like"). Trademark law doesn't have that; you can use the trademarked thing only to refer to the trademarked product. If you were "passing off", or trying to use the name to refer to something *else*, that would be considered a violation. So, for instance, you can make gas caps and say "compatible with Ford Explorer", because you're using their trademark to refer to their product. On the other hand, if you were to create cans of processed meat labeled "SPAN" in yellow letters on a blue background showing a plate of ham-like substance, you would probably be sued, and rightfully so.

'zilla' is a lot more like "Boyardee" than like "Chef". I certainly can't think of a lot of uses of it before Godzilla showed up.

Some marks are deemed "famous", such that they get to reserve the whole field. This may be a bad design, but it's how the laws are written.

Consider this: If I produce a candy called "Ford Bubblegum", no one is going to think it's a car, or that I'm doing it with a license from the car company.

On the other hand, if I sold kitchen aprons labeled "Boyardee", someone might figure that, while it's not soup, it was clearly trying to take advantage of their fame.

Here's the question: Would a typical user, confronted with a large dinosaur-like thing that walks on its back legs and has things down its back, and breathes fire, and has a name ending in "zilla", be likely to infer an association between that product and Godzilla?

Yes, the user would.

Thus, it's probably a violation.

IANAL, but for fuck's sake, people, *THINK*. This looks exactly like trying to take advantage of someone else's product name and reputation to make your own product look cooler; in this case, trying to take the "big unstoppable monster" aspect of Godzilla and apply it to a browser. It even shows the traditional fire-breathing thing in the splash screen!

Re:Mozilla was first, I think

[Erbo]

Mozilla started in "mid-1994" from the best info I've been able to find.

In Jamie Zawinski's diaries from that period, he mentions the meeting where he first coined the term "Mozilla," and describes it as being "a week or two ago" in an entry dated August 5, 1994. Late July 1994 is a good "best estimate" for the origin of "Mozilla."

Re:Hard to argue

[isaac]

Just as Johnson & Johnson lost its grip on "Band-Aid" which is now a synonym for bandage.

If you think so, just try marketing a bandage called "Band-Aid" - Johnson & Johnson's well-funded legal department would be on your ass directly. Similarly, Kimberly-Clark ain't gonna let you sell "Kleenex" facial tissues. Xerox won't let you market "Xerox" machines. The Thermos company will lay the legal hurt on you if you try to sell vacuum insulated bottles by that name.

The only former trademarks I can think of that have actually lost their protection are "Asprin" and "Heroin," which were both US trademarks belonging to Bayer AG until 1919 when the IP rights to these two "wonder drugs" were ceded in the Treaty of Versailles, NOT because they became generic terms. Aspirin became a generic term because the trademark was stripped, not the other way around.

-Isaac

Re:Too Late

[bwt]

Indeed, Netscape filed for trademark protection for the term "Mozilla" on 7-July-1995, under serial number 74698316.

However, since 18-July-1997, the status has been "An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board." There has not been a resolution and so "Mozilla" is not a registered trademark.