Slashdot Mirror


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."

12 of 747 comments (clear)

  1. Not a big deal. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In this case, they claim that he actually used the "Godzilla" name, and the image of a Godzilla-like creature. I think that his biggest mistake was not attributing the owners of the trademark he was 'using', and not including something like "used without permission", or "appologies to the {I for get the name} -- owners of the Godzilla trademark".

    For the most part, however, I doubt that people would think that dave was endorsed by the Godzilla trademark owners. Less so, Mozilla which doesn't actually use the "Godzilla" name. There's nothing wrong with parody, or flattery by mimicry. I don't think that there's much reason for fear, as long as the Mozilla group doesn't try to branch into the horror-movie genre.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  2. What ever happened to "tradespace"? by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, I'll grant you that calling something ".+zilla" and using a dinosaur/dragon-like logo is probably coming close to violating a Godzilla trademark.

    But what ever happened to the concept of a restricted space within which trademarks are (were?) supposed to operate? I had understood that trademarks were only protected within the same general "realm" of a product -- which is how we've got Excel cars and Excel spreadsheets.

    It's seemed to me, with the advent of the modern internet, that all these distinctions have been thrown away, and that the courts are allowing that diminished distinction. So Palm has to stop calling their Pilot a "Pilot" because a pen company complains.

    Does anyone know what exactly is the deal here? Have domain-name disputes finally opened the door for a single, universal, all-encompasing product namespace?

    If someone wants to call their browser Mozilla (or even Godzilla), then they should be able to, because the chances of someone confusing a web browser with a big lizard are pretty darned slim.

    Or have I misunderstood this aspect of (US) trademark law all along?

  3. Almost every graphical web browser... by Omega · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Almost every graphical web browser's User-Agent string starts with "Mozilla/4.0". So unless they go after Opera, AOL and Microsoft, then they aren't adequately defending their trademark -- hence they no longer own exclusive rights to the trademark.

  4. Re:Ludicrous by gengee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Come on, lets be serious davezilla and mozilla were inspired by Godzilla (little dragon guy). While I think that the trademark owners are being totally stupid about this its their right.

    Yes - exactly. It was /inspired/ by Godzilla. But it's /not/ Godzilla. It's Davezilla. Can you honestly say that you could ever possibly confuse the two? That anyone could ever confuse the two? No? Well then there's no trademark infringement, since that is the benchmark.

    --
    - James
  5. It's Gojira nimnertz !!!! by gelfling · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The character and the movie is GOJIRA.

    God-zilla is an American Eenglish bastardization. They should at least after the right fucking phoneme.

    how rame.

  6. Re:Ludicrous by aronc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I never thought that Mozilla and Godzilla had anything to do with each other I would probable still be using Netscape or Opera if not for the fact I said to myself 'hey clever name' and checked it out.

    This is generally called "participating in your culture" or "cultural discourse" for the more academic among us. It is not trademark infringement.

    --

    jello.
    aka aron.
  7. Mozilla was first, I think by Ironica · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While Toho first trademarked the Godzilla word mark in 1981, they did not hold a trademark on its use in computer software until October of 1994. Mozilla started in "mid-1994" from the best info I've been able to find. I seem to remember someone showing it to me in the spring of that year, though that might have been Mosaic. Neither their first trademark nor the software one have any illustrations or descriptions of a lizard-like monster creature, though; that does not appear to be a part of the trademark. Their most comprehensive trademark was registered in 2000, presumably with the launch of the Sony movie. That one *still* doesn't describe godzilla though.

    I'm no trademark attorney, but I'm guessing that, since they're not claiming in the trademark registration that the mark consists of the word + the monster, they don't have a leg to stand on with *zilla claims. Also, it doesn't appear they stopped Bugzilla (the cleaning agent, not the software) from registering its trademark in 2000. Milton Bradley has also owned a trademark on Eggzilla since 1987.

    All in all, they have a lot of fish to fry if they're going to try to reserve *zilla as their own, including multiple existing or pending trademarks. (Budzilla, Rodzilla, and Speedzilla are all currently published for opposition.)

    I love the Trademark Electronic Search System...

    --
    Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  8. Maybe right, however by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Note that the user agent strings in most browsers say "Mozilla." For example, IE 6 on .NET Server says, "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.2; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)."

    This tells me that Mozilla has become common enough in its own right as distinct from Godzilla. The most they could do would be to try to force a change of mascot, much as it would be funny to see them try to argue "Your honor, we submit that the user agent string in Internet Explorer is in violation of our trademark rights, and demand 1% of all Windows sales revenue."

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  9. Re:WWF? by plugger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A serious question. Could someone set up a non-IT firm, call it something like 'Imaginative Balloon Makers', and use the acronym IBM without being harassed?

  10. Gozilla by davidsansome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What about Gozilla - that annoying download-resumer thing for Windows? It sounds a lot more like Godzilla than Davezilla.

    --
    -- Wibble
  11. Re:Hard to argue by gengee · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "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.


    Ummm...You wish? Actually, I take it from your post that you don't wish - You're just misinformed. Trademark law does, and always has had, the concept of 'Fair Use'. I would refer you to the Lanham Act which covers the topic.

    Further, it has been made clear in innumerable court cases in the US that anyone is free to use any trademark for any purpose, so long as the consumer would not normally be confused by the use. To wit, in Soeco, Inc v. Shell Oil Co: "[A]nyone is free to use the term in its primary, descriptive sense so long as such use does not lead to customer confusion as to the source of the goods or services."

    Your "Boyardee" argument is valid, but I believe my original point is still valid, because Davezilla is not making movies (Or action figures, comic books, or otherwise trying to trade on the Godzilla character)
    --
    - James
  12. Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla... by bay43270 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    exactly. Search google for "zilla". The results show just how well they've defended their trademark.