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

so what?

[endoboy]

mothra will protect us

Re:so what?

[DrNibbler]

Mothra... that's a Bugzilla, right?

Re:so what?

[PinkStainlessTail]

Look, all they have to do is change the name to Mojira. Problem solved.

Or not.

Re:so what?

[mpe]

mothra will protect us.

"Mothra" describes that the chracter is based on a moth. Is the name "Godzilla" entirely made up or does it actually mean something.
Anyway isn't there a time limit of claiming trademark infringment?

Re:so what?

[endoboy]

"Anyway isn't there a time limit of claiming trademark infringment?" Nope--trademarks live forever, as long as the holder prevents them from falling into common usage...

Re:so what?

[Spackler]

Nope--trademarks live forever, as long as the holder prevents them from falling into common usage...

Umm, little late.

-Spackzilla

Re:so what?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

mpe wrote:

(that endoboy wrote:)
>> mothra will protect us.

> "Mothra" describes that the chracter is based on a
> moth.

Indeed. The name originates from "mosu" (Japanese mangling of English "moth") plus "lah" (Malaysian particle for emphasis, rendered in Japanese and English as "ra").

> Is the name "Godzilla" entirely made up or does
> it actually mean something.

It's actually the nickname of a crew member of the original Godzilla movie. "Go" comes from the English "gorilla". "Jira" is from the Japanese word for "whale". "Jira" is rendered in the English title as "dzilla". "Zilla" is imitative of their trademark, but since Godzilla's name in Japanese is not "Gozira", I'm not sure how much grounds they have. I'm also not sure if either the Japanese or American versions of the movie "Gojira" have entered the public domain yet, as some Godzilla movies have.

Appealing to Mothra is quite correct. She has as long a history of hating this type of behavior as Toho has of practicing it. As GMK once again proved, the Godzilla series is dependant on her for its survival. Since Toho bases its monsters on real deities (Mothra is based on Amaterasu omi kami, Japan's great Sun Goddess), one may have some expectation of getting some help out of them. Godzilla himself might be of some help, since he has recently been giving nods to open source in his movies.

Time to sing some Mothra songs.

"Compassionate Sun, Sun Goddess, Great Mothra! Great Mothra! Mothra!"
Japanese language "Mothra's Song", "Ebirah, Horror of the Deep"

Re:so what?

[uncoveror]

If Toho actually brings a lawsuit, will it be called Slappzilla? How do you say frivolous in Japanese? This is like Microsoft suing Andersen and Pella over use of the term "windows."

As reported on the register.

[iamwoodyjones]

Wow, everyone is right. Slashdot is starting to become a comment board for the register.

Re:As reported on the register.

[1010011010]

Without, of course, reciting The Register, because we hate them. Or something. Even though "Roblimo" writes articles for NewsForge which then appear on The Register, because of an agreement between VA Sheep's Bladders and The Register, because we don't hate them. Or something. Colonel Mustard, with the Candlestick in the Kitchen. I think.

Re:As reported on the register.

[DaveAtFraud]

I resemble that remark!

(PROUDLY)

Re:As reported on the register.

[Xerithane]

Yeah, and I personally like the diarrhea color scheme of Slashdot better than the register.

Re:As reported on the register.

[Artifex]

Yeah, and I personally like the diarrhea color scheme of Slashdot better than the register

Oh, you should hang out in the Apple section, where it's minty-fresh, pastel diarrhea!

Okay, enough zilla-ness. (that's what the lawyers said!)

Re:As reported on the register.

[MicroBerto]

Oddly enough, this is what I get when I eat any amount of Trix cereal! I guess it's just for kids...

Re:As reported on the register.

[flonker]

Silly rabbit, tricks are for hookers!

Hard to argue

[Heem]

While I love mozilla and the logo is kick-ass...

It's hard to argue with this.. it does seem to be pretty blatant... hopefully they can come to an agreement...

Re:Hard to argue

[gengee]

Excuse me? It's a clear case of fair use. Have corporations really been so successful in pulling the blinds over our collective eyes that people do not take issue with a company claiming ownership of the formative 'zilla' and any remote likeness of a "reptile-like creature?"

This would be roughly equivalent to the owners of the Chef Boyardee trademark claiming ownership of "Chef" when used in conjunction with any food product:P

Trademarks are NOT ownership of a word. It is ownership of a brand. Hence, I can call my product "Kleenex" if I'm selling candy. If I'm selling tissue, however, you can bet Kimberly-Clark would come knocking.

Re:Hard to argue

[RazzleFrog]

Excuse me? It's a clear case of fair use.

Fair use does not apply to trademarks only copyrights. Two very different worlds. The name and image of Godzilla make up the trademark. The image of Godzilla is a copyrighted image. Trademarks are handles by the USPTO while Copyrights are handled by the Libary of Congress.

Re:Hard to argue

[_ph1ux_]

huh? what about the FIRST PART OF THE NAME - *GOD*

do they claim to own that? if they are going after "zilla" words, you should be able to throw it out due to the fact that we know how rediculous it would be if they claimed the same on any sites / words containing GOD in them.

Re:Hard to argue

[aronc]

Copyrights are handled by the Libary of Congress.


Really? I would have sworn they were handled by the Copyright Interests through their agents - the congress, the house, and the president.

Now excuse me. I have to clean my computer after checking those links. Where did I put the hydrochloric?

Re:Hard to argue

[Wavicle]

I disagree... I think it would be easy to argue:

Toho has no trademark on 'Zilla, because the use of that term for just about everything has become so common in the language that it no longer deserves trademark protection.

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

The use of "'zillas" goes back many years and a trademark owner is required to agressively and proactively defend its trademark from dilution.

"'Zilla" is diluted, there's a pretty strong argument for that. And that defeats a trademark.

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:Hard to argue

[GreyPoopon]

Well, while there may be some contention over the "dinosaur" picture, there is little possibility for problems with the use of "zilla" in the name. Apparently, that word has existed since at least 1913, and the first movie (Gojira) didn't come out until 1954. As best as I can tell, Godzilla wasn't used until the 1956 American release.

Also, they don't have a trademark on the use of a dinosaur. At best, they can keep you from using "Zilla" in conjunction with a dinosaur logo, but they surely should not be able to keep you from using one or the other alone.

Personally, I think they should just back the heck off and count all of this as free advertising. It's not like they are losing any money as a result of these types of uses. All they are getting with a lawsuit is negative publicity. If they must protect their trademark, then at least come to an agreement that allows interested parties permission to specialized use of the name and/or logo.

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:Hard to argue

[Wavicle]

Isn't Band-Aid a stateside generic term for sticking plasters?

Isn't that what I said?

For the example to hold, "Band Aid" would have had to have been diluted such that it has entered the language:

1) Band Aid is a synonym for a self adhesive strip bandage.
2) Band Aid is an adjective meaning "A haphazard repair done quickly and temporary in nature"
3) Band Aid was a fund raising concert for starving people in africa.

That's pretty diluted. Just as 'Zilla has entered the language:
BugZilla
DiffZilla
MoZilla
Go!Zilla
TrafficZilla
and what was the phrase the judge in the Mattel v. Aqua/MCA/et.al. call Mattel?

Re:Hard to argue

[NanoGator]

"This would be roughly equivalent to the owners of the Chef Boyardee trademark claiming ownership of "Chef" when used in conjunction with any food product:P"

No, it'd be the equivalent of calling yourself "Chef MoArdee" and your logo look like Colonel Sanders with a Chef's hat.

I'm not saying I agree with the suit, but I do think I understand it. The Mozilla team made a huge mistake by calling it Mozilla and giving it an 'overgrown lizard' look to it. They could have gotten away with either/or, but few people would look at it and not recognize the Godzilla reference.

Again, not saying I support it, just saying that they really could have used a little more common sense. The only defense they have is that they're not making badly dubbed movies.

Re:Hard to argue

[gengee]

"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)

Re:Hard to argue

[ceejayoz]

No, it'd be the equivalent of calling yourself "Chef MoArdee" and your logo look like Colonel Sanders with a Chef's hat.

Not really - Mozilla and Godzilla are in rather different categories... Godzilla = character, Mozilla = web browser. There's much less chance of confusing that ("Oh, I thought I was downloading Godzilla merchandise, not a web browser!!!") than in the example you provided.

Re:Hard to argue

[rseuhs]

If you are too stupid to drink coffee, you should be put into a geriatric clinic (or equivalent) but you should not be honored for your stupidity.

Re:Hard to argue

[NanoGator]

No, you have two names that sound alike, and two logos/images that have a similarity. You can't look at Mozilla's name, then Mozilla's logo, then not think of Godzilla. I think it's ridiculous that the owners of the Godzilla trademark think that Mozilla's gonna do any damage to the value of it, but if I squint really hard I can see why they'd go on the offensive. If somebody makes a trademark like yours, and you do nothing to stop them, then it's that much easier for somebody else to come along and snag it.

The problem with trademarks in the United States is that they force you to take offensive action any time you think you're in danger. If you don't, it's percieved as 'permission'. I am not kidding. This is why Disney and Paramount are so 'evil' about protecting their property. If I draw Mickey Mouse on my shirt, then soembody else gets inspired to make Mickey Mouse shirts, Disney has to sue me first before they can sue the next guy.

The internet presents a new problem: The little guy can have trademarks, but he/she cannot afford to sue anybody. I hope the Gov't figures this out one day and reworks the TM system a bit.

Re:Hard to argue

[ceejayoz]

Mozilla's logo, eh? You mean the red T-rex dinosaur?

Re:Hard to argue

[Wavicle]

So are kids stuck on band-aid 'cuz band-aid's stuck on them?

Oh wait, no they aren't anymore... Now kids are stuck on band-aid BRAND...

I wonder why they changed the jingle... hmmm...

No, you can't market bandages with that name, but as far as dilution is concerned, it's gone. So coming back to the TOPIC as to can DaveZilla argue that Toho doesn't have claim to "Zilla"... No they don't unless DaveZilla is a movie or toy of a large mothra-fighting lizard.

Re:Hard to argue

[NanoGator]

Those are good starting places, but you're
forgetting this logo:

Mozilla's Splash Page.

Re:Hard to argue

[John Hasler]

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)

And his dragon resembles the one on the Welsh flag
(http://www.data-wales.co.uk/flag.htm) far more than it does Godzilla.

Re:Hard to argue

[John Hasler]

Godzilla was not the first fire-breathing dragon ever drawn. Not by centuries. Why do you expect these people to succeed with fire-breathing dragons where Disney failed with cartoon mice?

Re:Hard to argue

[NanoGator]

a.) When did Disney fail with cartoon mice? (never heard of that...)

b.) Why are you asking me? I'm not the one filing suit here. I think the whole thing's stupid. I think Mozilla's stupid for expecting this, and I think the TM holder of Godzilla's stupid for pursuing it.

Re:Hard to argue

[John Hasler]

When did Disney fail with cartoon mice? (never
heard of that...)

Ever heard of Mighty Mouse?

Why are you asking me?

It was a generic you.

Re:Hard to argue

[Shelled]

IANAL, but for fuck's sake, people, *THINK*.

Think deeper. The fact that 'zilla' was popularized in a 60's Japanese movie does not lock it's usage in all commercial and non-commercial contexts in perpetuity.

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?

Would they confuse a web browser with a product of the Toho movie company? No, they wouldn't.

Re:Hard to argue

[dvdeug]

Oh wait, no they aren't anymore... Now kids are stuck on band-aid BRAND...

I wonder why they changed the jingle... hmmm...

Because trademarks are supposed to be used as adjectives; legally, you're much safer calling them band-aid brand bandages instead of band-aids. This is a sign that they are defending their trademark, not that they lost it.

Re:Hard to argue

[Wavicle]

*sigh* when will you people understand... Band Aid has already lost the "uniqueness" of their name through dilution.

You guys are stuck on "You either have it or you don't" when that is untrue. Nobody making self adhesive bandages can market them as "Band aids". But a plumber who repairs leaks can market "I bandaid your leaky faucet".

Now if I made my own brand of adhesive bandages called "Mag a gag", a plumber who repairs leaks cannot say "I mag a gag your leaky faucet" because *MY* brand name has not been diluted. I could sue him for dilution of *MY* trademark even though on its face it doesn't seem like this plumber is going to sell you my self adhesive bandages.

Johnson & Johnson has lost that bit of their trademark... Okay let me say this again because you guys don't seem to be reading it... They haven't lost the right to exclusively market their product in their market... They've lost the right to sue someone trying to dilute their trademark.

So coming BACK TO THE TOPIC... Toho has lost "Zilla" to dilution. If "DaveZilla" is some sort of fiction about a city smashing lizard from the sea, they ABSOLUTELY can sue for misappropriation of their "GODZILLA" mark. However because "Zilla" has been DILUTED, they can't go after anyone using the notion of "Zilla" created by their GODZILLA movies (well they can, but they'll lose).

Re:Hard to argue

[Chris Canfield]

A cursory glance through google reveals

Go!zilla
zilla clothing
zilla design
zilla sports
zilla motor control
trafficzilla
a Japanese Zilla 10 base T hub
bowlzilla
3d zilla

zilla is listed in dictionary.com as "a low, thorny, suffrutescent, crucifeous plant (Zilla myagroides)".

It also lists the origin as "Mosaic Killer / Godzilla?" which will make the case harder to argue.

I'd write something insightful about Lindows, and how Mozilla's trademark is in fact a T-Rex and has never been more Godzilla like than becoming firebreathing, a common feature of imaginary giant dinosaurs (which I find quite ironic to write from a copy of Opera). But I need to run to work, so you all are spared.

-Chris

Re:Hard to argue

[dvdeug]

*sigh* when will you people understand...

That if you don't have evidence, you resort to ad homine attacks?

Re:Hard to argue

[Wavicle]

Exasperation does not always equal ad hominem. I like how you depend on removing one line from the whole argument. Look the phrase up some day.

Re:Hard to argue

[dvdeug]

I like how you depend on removing one line from the whole argument.

What argument?

Johnson & Johnson has lost that bit of their trademark... Okay let me say this again because you guys don't seem to be reading it... They haven't lost the right to exclusively market their product in their market... They've lost the right to sue someone trying to dilute their trademark.

is not an argument; it's a restatement of the facts as you see them, combined with attacks on your audience. Yes, we are reading it; no, we aren't believing it just on your say-so.

Re:Hard to argue

[Wavicle]

Really?

Re:Hard to argue

[Wavicle]

Apparently you aren't using google or reading the 9th circuit court's opinions either. Doesn't much matter.

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.

Re:Text in case of /.ing

[Dr Caleb]

Guess some guy named Mark is gonna get hammered for registering "ZILLA.COM".

Makes me want to run out and register "DRCALEBZILLA.COM". Perhaps if everyone registers a "ZILLA.COM" address we can do the reverse /. effect, and tie the lawyers up for years trying to track every one down.

Re:Text in case of /.ing

[symbolic]

Just switch the picture to a ferocious looking canine, and change the name to Dogzilla. : )

Re:Text in case of /.ing

[Xerithane]

XerithaneZilla just doesn't work though. However I think LawyerZilla.com would be a cool domain.

Re:Text in case of /.ing

[Zordak]

From davezilla

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."

He has a cartoon that a reader sent in to him with "Davezilla vs. Godzilla" after he got the letter from the lawyers. Prior to that, he did not use the name "Godzilla" on his site.

God

[Raster Burn]

On a related note, God decides to sue Toho for using the word "God" without His permission.

Re:God

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

Where's he going to get the lawyers?

Plus, I would assume that God would settle out of court. (Lightning rod anyone?)

Re:God

[jazman_777]

On a related note, God decides to sue Toho for using the word "God" without His permission.

On the contrary, I hear that Toho is going after all religions that use the word "God", since "some of them have acted monstrously", and people might get confused.

Re:God

[goldspider]

"Where's he going to get the lawyers?"

An interesting question, since any lawyer worth their salt has already sold their immortal soul to the Dark One (or Bill Gates, take your pick).

I love to root for the good guy, but in this case I think the Almighty is a little outmatched on this one.

Re:God

[bwt]

Didn't the 9th Circuit just rule that Godzilla was unconstitutional?

Re:God

[satanami69]

It's only when the people stop and notice they are "one nation, under Godzilla", right before he steps on them.

Refer to this comic for more details.

Re:God

[donutello]

I don't think God will have a case there. There's plenty of prior art to indicate that the concept was made up by humans before he even existed.

Not sure if this matters

[smileyy]

...but the term "Mozilla" has been associated with Netscape for a long, long time, even before the open source project. In fact, you're likely to see "Mozilla" in most user agent strings, even from non-Netscape browsers.

Re:Not sure if this matters

[timothy_m_smith]

That may be true, but that isn't going to change this guy's stand. Godzilla has probably been trademarked for at least 50 years (not that i've checked) and Mozilla has probably not even been in use for 10 years. That being said, Godzilla will certainly have the advantage in regards to time...Mozilla will need to prove that it doesn't actually infringe.

Wowzilla.

[teamhasnoi]

That's fuckedzilla. Izilla hopezilla theyzilla don'tzilla comezilla afterzilla mezilla.

Re:Wowzilla.

[nEoN nOoDlE]

That's fuckedzilla. Izilla hopezilla theyzilla don'tzilla comezilla afterzilla mezilla.

that sounds like a new weird accent for another annoying Star Wars character... Hey George, you listening to this?

zilla != Godzilla

[Fastball]

By their claim, Microsoft would be able to file suit against Microtek, Micron, Micromedia, Microware, ... I can see where there is an argument against the reptilian logo, but to parse letters in a non-profit project's title goes too far.

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.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[Jucius Maximus]

Yeah, but "Big Lizard, like the one used in Mozilla" == Godzilla.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[John Hasler]

Quit reaching, and admit its a good claim.
Sure, going after a non-profit project is low
down, but its still in their rights.

Trademark is not copyright. They have to prove that potential customers of theirs are likely to confuse the mark Mozilla with their Godzilla mark. Fairly difficult, I think. As to the image, pictures of lizards and dinosaurs have been around for a long time. The fact that they have not complained before this will count heavily against them, too.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[Frobnicator]

Zilla means nothing, and is only used in Godzilla

Untrue. Zilla in ENGLISH has no meaning. Zilla or Zillah DOES have meaning in other languages, such as Arabic, and could be considered a suffix. Several US companies have taken the Arabic 'zillah' as part of their name, for example.

The word sounds interesting and was made popular by the Godzilla series, and then it became abused by a number of companies. That does not mean that Godzilla owns that particular series of letters.

As for their claim that Davezilla was using their name "GODZILLA", that would be a problem. (although he claims he did not.) Finally, as to their claims of ownership of the image, we would need to look at their trademark registration to see if the two images really are confusing (that's up to a Judge, if Davezilla wants to do that).

frob.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[BlackGriffen]

Problem is that the reptilian logo looks more like either a t-rex or a velociraptor than a guy in a cheesy costume.

BG

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[Stephen Samuel]

Your argument is somewhat rediculous. "Micro" was used before Microsoft, and has a meaning. .....

"Windows" has had a meaning before Microsoft as well (In the computing field, even), but that didn't stop them from going after the "Lindows" people.

There's reason, then there's laws. Then again, there's lawyers.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[Neon Spiral Injector]

Plus one is a fictional movie monster, and the other just crushed Tokyo, er, is a webbrowser.

Trademarks are unique to markets.

So with that, and them not defending their mark for the 10 years that N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, pronounced Mozilla has been around, I don't see how they have a case.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Yea, that's right. And for all those folks out there who have been infringing on my own intellectual property, let it be known from now on; I will be requiring licensing fees for anyone using MadFarmAnimalz as a prefix to anything.

This goes too for my other nicks, namely RancidAmoeba and DromedaryOfWar.

Cease and desist.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[GreyPoopon]

Zilla means nothing, and is only used in Godzilla.

You are so wrong.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[T-Ranger]

Nope, not at all..

The Trarnasaurs Rex-ish character related to the netscape browser is "mozilla". Its the name of the browser, and its the name of the character as well.

"Mozilla" was proposed as the name of the (browser) by JWZ sometime before Sunday, 5 August 1994 according to his diary at jwz.org..

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[cetan]

To quote your own post:

"Zilla means nothing, and is only used in Godzilla."

I proved you wrong. I never said one thing about the merits of the case. I simply and quite quickly pointed out to you that Zilla does not, in fact, mean "nothing."

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[cetan]

Jesus Christ you are blind:

"Zilla means nothing, and is only used in Godzilla."

Bam. 2 uses in seconds.

THAT was my point you moron. Knox runs off at the mouth, gets proven wrong and then comes back with you and your friends to lay some smack down. Typical slashdot troll

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[alienmole]

The problem with your bug is that there's not a developer alive who can fix that one, no matter how 1337 their coding skillz may be...

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[cetan]

Wow! You can read, Knox.

And it's still 100% true. But your trolling, thank goodness, says nothing on the merits of the case, just on your lack of intelligence.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[Conanymous Award]

Trarnasaurs Rex

This must be among the most hilarious misspellings in the history of Shlashdot.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[ceejayoz]

but that didn't stop them from going after the "Lindows" people

It also didn't stop them from LOSING the court case.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[cetan]

What's so funny is that you still don't get it. Even though I've never once mentioned the merits of the case, you keep going on and on. And as anon too because your Karma must be sooo important to you.

How pathetic.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[Peter Harris]

Exactly though. zilla doesn't mean godzilla either. If godzilla is the trademark, *zilla isn't.

But isn't the name of the fire-breathing monster actually GOJIRA? Japanese doesn't even have an L, for a start. So unless you spell Mozilla àç, you're probably OK.

In any case, NO NO NO NO NO. It's a cynical, bogus claim.

If Toho go after AOL Time/Warner I hope they (Toho) get slapped down hard in court rather than succeed in getting an juicy out-of-court settlement.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[cetan]

Why do you continue this lie? You're the 8 year old who's standing next to the broken lamp saying you had nothing to do with it.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[cetan]

Of course people give a flying fuck. You do because you've posted how many responses now? I think it's great that you care so much, it proves my point perfectly.

Re:zilla != Godzilla

[cetan]

Well, I know it's not but you continue to live that way. Do you just like the irony or is it a lack of a frontal lobe?

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:No more Green Mozilla.

[Guppy06]

" This is one of the reasons there's no longer a green Mozilla logo,"

Then I must be color-blind. I keep on seeing a green, fire-breathing lizard on the splash screen whenever I start Moz. And there's another green lizard delivering mail when I start Moz mail.

Re:No more Green Mozilla.

[oyenstikker]

I still see the fire breathing green dragon when I start Mozilla 1.somethingorother

Re:No more Green Mozilla.

[BZ]

That's a gecko. It looks nothing like the green Mozilla logo.

Re:No more Green Mozilla.

[ceejayoz]

I've always imagined an IE logo being in the path of the flame... but I guess that'd cause Mozilla some legal issues too ;-)

Re:No more Green Mozilla.

[brank]

No.

Mozilla has always (well, almost always) used a red dinosaur instead of Netscape's green lizard. Somebody probably considered the trademark thing at some point, but the switch was made only to make it clear that Mozilla.org was a separate entity from Netscape. If Netscape the company ever started using Mozilla as its mascot again, it would still be green.

Re:No more Green Mozilla.

[John Hasler]

Microsoft would bluster, but it would be perfectly legal.

Reply

[0101000001001010]

I was in the middle of typing a sensible and well thought out reply about the extent to which the Godzilla trademark should be protected from ripp-offs. Then I realized that the situation can better be described in one sentence.

What a Dick!

Re:Good

[topham]

So your honestly saying that you were confused and thought Davezilla was acting on behalf of the company that owns the tm for Godzilla?

Now thats funny

Too Late

[nathanm]

Mozilla's been around for what, about 4 years? If this company sat around for that long without defending their trademark, too bad! Any rational, impartial judge (if they exist) would throw this out of court.

Re:Too Late

[FooBarWidget]

Mozilla has been around for much, much longer. Probably as long as Netscape Navigator exists.

Re:Too Late

[aengblom]

Not neccesarily true. WWF (The world wildlife fund) just recently won the exclusive rights to it's abbreviation over the WWE (formely World Wrestling Foundation... now World Wrestling Entertainment)

As WWE campaign famously says "get the F out" ;-)

Re:Too Late

[John Hasler]

Exclusive rights to an acronym? Please.
That was ridiculous.

No, just British. British trademark law is a bit different from that in the US.

Re:Too Late

[Dirtside]

The World Wildlife Fund has been hassling the WWE for years about their trademark. The dispute was only *settled* recently, but the WWF brought it up years ago, so it's not like they only recently decided to challenge the WWF.

However, I'm not sure if the WWE's change was due to a court decision, or a private settlement.

Re:Too Late

[edwdig]

The World Wildlife Fund first complained in the early ninties. The World Wrestling Federation made a bad move, and agreed to a contract not to use the initials outside the US. They had no intentions of honoring that, they just signed it to shut up the wildlife fund. Eventually the Wildlife Fund sued over it, and recently won in court do to that old contract.

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.

Re:Too Late

[John Hasler]

Nothing relieves IP law of its ridicule.

God forbid!

[brooks_talley]

I feel so sorry for this poor company. Having one of their trademarks lightly referenced in the context of the open source vs. Microsoft battle. Thus keeping the mark in front of not only geeks, but a fair amount of the mainstream as well. Thereby increasing interest in their Godzilla properties, and generally entrenching the -zilla suffix in the not only english, but other languages as well.

It must be terrible for them, all that free publicity.

Of course, to retain control of the trademark it might be necessary to come to some licensing agreement, but trying to stamp out the use of -zilla is a serious case of shooting oneself in the foot. Hormel wised up about Spam; you'd think these folks would learn from that example.

Cheers
-b

also

[Jonny Ringo]

The gecko from Geico insurance is getting hassled again by email.

Re:also

[Fjord]

The lizard is in turn suing the Mozilla group for trademark infringment on the naming of their rendering engine.

Forget Mothra...

[Eberlin]

...we need Robert Smith of The Cure to save us now. Nothing like a good ol' roshambo to settle this dispute.

Re:Forget Mothra...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

If necessary, I guess we could go with Leonard Maltin or even (gasp!) Barbra Streisand!

Re:Forget Mothra...

[seanmeister]

dangit, you owe me a keyboard!

Robert Smeeeeeeeth... Robert Smeeeeeeth.....

Re:Forget Mothra...

[Captain Large Face]

What we really need right now is Matthew Broderick..

New name / mascot needed.

[Hobart]

I recommend the Mozilla project change its mascot to another cute character ...

Something more approachable, but still computer related ... a mouse would do nicely...

Since the original name was derived from Mosaic, and the NCSA project is shelved and Spyglass is no more, "Mosaic Mouse" would do nicely...

OK, sing it with me...

Who's the browser, Open Sourced, that's made for you and me?
M O S - A I C
M O U S E!

Re:New name / mascot needed.

[JahToasted]

Of course we all know the owners of the Mickey Mouse trademark are much less litigous than the owners' of Godzilla when it comes to intellectual property.

Re:New name / mascot needed.

[ceejayoz]

er... this is a krill? Nope...

Not a big deal.

[Stephen Samuel]

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.

Re:Not a big deal.

[macdaddy]

I think the kid said he hadn't ever used the "Godzilla" name though. So he has a domain name with 5 common characters in it and a lizard on his website. I don't think there's much of a violation there. Now if he blatently ripped the image from the official Godzilla homepage or something then yeah I'd say he's SOL. I think if he could afford to stand against Toho, he'd win fairly easily. The cost of ligitation would still suck though.

Re:Not a big deal.

[Stephen Samuel]

The letter claims that he used the Godzilla name and a reptilian image of some sort on his site. If that's not true, then they've got a REAL flimsy suit against him. Probably just some under-utilized lawyers on a make-work binge.

Partially similar?

[anthony_dipierro]

Can they even do this? I wasn't aware you could sue someone for using a mark that was partially similar to your own trademark.

I don't know, but you can definately sue for using a mark which is completely similar and partially exact.

Oh Shit

[aozilla]

My nick is in trouble.

Not going to fly.

[mesozoic]

It's going to be a stretch for Toho to prove what it needs to prove: that Mozilla is infringing on a trademark. The words 'Godzilla' are not used anywhere, and the logo is of a different shape and color than Godzilla (it looks more like a T-Rex than anything else). The suffix 'zilla' and the presence of a reptilian image is not enough to shut down a software project. If it were a movie, however, this would be a different issue.

I'm not a lawyer, though, so anyone with a legal education and a better angle on the subject, feel free to correct.

What ever happened to "tradespace"?

[dschuetz]

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?

Re:What ever happened to "tradespace"?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Nolo Press has a good book about trademark law.

Once a trademark becomes famous there's a different set of rules that come into play. Even before the Internet you would have had major grief if you'd tried to sell cars or stereos labeled "McDonald's".

What the Internet has been eroding is the concept of a regional trademark, under which there could be a Foobar General Store in Iowa and other in Nebraska.

Words to search for include "dilution", "secondary meaning", and "famous mark".

If you really need to know about a legal question consult an actual lawyer.

Re:What ever happened to "tradespace"?

[ceejayoz]

Once a trademark becomes famous there's a different set of rules that come into play. Even before the Internet you would have had major grief if you'd tried to sell cars or stereos labeled "McDonald's".

"McDonald's Used Cars" would be fine if you'r last name is McDonald...

Re:What ever happened to "tradespace"?

[Zordak]

If my name were Bob McDonald, and I wanted to open McDonald's Steros, and I had a store logo that had nothing to do with yellow arches (say it was a blue neon sign with cursive lettering), I'd be willing to take on McDonald's over my right to use that name. On the other hand, if my name were Jim Smith, and I started McDonald's Hot Dogs with a stand in the park, and I spelled it with curvy, yellow lettering, and I had an obnoxious clown trying to attract children to my hot dog stand, then yeah, they'd probably sue me, and rightly so.

Re:What ever happened to "tradespace"?

[Odinson]

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?

Yes, it makes MS's smart tag server DBA's life much easier. He is currently disgruntled over MS stock option losses and thinking of leaving.

Life is better with no more of those pesky "in context, trademark violating, superimposed link" lawsuits from those "other" companies.

Another 'zilla to pester

[TrinSF]

I wonder if they'll go after the product of one of my former employers, Go!Zilla. It used to have a more lizardy logo, but now it only has big eyes.

As a lark when I worked there, I once arranged for us to buy a number of 6 foot inflatable Godzilla dolls, which we dressed in company t-shirts and abused. We also had "I love the lizard!" logo tshirts.

But that was a long time ago and the company is gone now; only the product remains.

Re:Another 'zilla to pester

[Coplan]

Company or not -- the product is still being updated by someone, is it not? When a download is complete, it even growls at you in the trademark sound.

Mozilla or Go!Zilla...which is more of an exploitation?

What about the component names: Seamonkey? Do they still sell those awful things? Will they try to sue Mozilla too? Or don't they have enough money to do so? Maybe we don't have to worry there.

Re:Another 'zilla to pester

[TrinSF]

Actually, I don't think it *is* being updated. I know the FAQ hasn't been updated since I stopped doing so in January of 2001. As far as I know, all the programmers originally on the project have long since moved on.

Almost every graphical web browser...

[Omega]

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.

Re:Almost every graphical web browser...

[BlowCat]

However, only Mozilla project uses this name to promote the project. Others simply state that they are compatible with Mozilla. Netscape could have gone after them, but they didn't. Now if AOL loses the Mozilla trademark, it will be a very interesting question whether Microsoft and others will have to drop "Mozilla compatible" from their browsers.

Basically, if you steal and give away stolen goods, those who get those goods have to return them. I wonder if it applies to trademarks.

Re:Almost every graphical web browser...

[unicron]

While I disagree with their tactics in everyday business, I can say that it would be extremely funny to watch this company go after Microsoft.

Microsoft Lawyer: "Your honor, we've taken the liberty of creating Godzilla using advanced cloning and dna-manipulation technology. He's just as big, just as mean, and of course, breathes fire. We feel it only fair to alert the people of Japan he will be on his way over should this ridiculous trial proceed any further."

Toho Lawyer: "We must flee!"

Re:Uh oh!

[SquadBoy]

Man: I now pronounce you President of these United --
Reporter: Stop the inauguration! I just discovered our President Elect
got an F in second grade gym class!
[crows gasps; Lisa is handcuffed]
Man: In that case I sentence you to a lifetime of horror on Monster
Island. [to Lisa] Don't worry, it's just a name.
[Lisa and others are chased by fire-breathing monsters]
Lisa: He said it was just a name!
Man: What he meant is that Monster Island is actually a peninsula.

Original version

[Salsaman]

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

What happen ? Someone set up us the trademark infringement ! Take off every 'zilla' ! You know what you doing.

For great justice,

SEYFARTH SHAW

Jill A. Jacobs

This could be some serious revenue

[anthony_dipierro]

Just look at all the lawsuits waiting to happen.

Awful name

[Animats]

Maybe it's a good time for Mozilla to get a name that would look good on a mass-market product. Maybe go back to "Mosaic"? Yes, it's possible to succeed with a dumb name, but it takes a really big advertising budget.

And would someone please help out the Ogg Vorbis people?

Re:Awful name

[glwtta]

oh great arbiter of name quality, would you concede to... aw fuck it - Ogg Vorbis is a great name!

Zany_vanilla.equals("zilla")

[elocutio]

Other things that could have originated the form "Zilla":

Zoo Gorilla

Zeus Pilla

Shortening of Priscilla

Z-Index Layers Lose All

ZILch LAtitude

Zero Internet Lan Lag Access

I like creative names, and if a product name happens to pay homage to a famous fire-breathing dinosaur, so be it. Besides, Mozilla sounds a lot cooler than Moceratops or Morannosaurus or Mobarney.

Re:Good

[JCMay]

But, according to this PDF file (see page. 29-30), IDEAS can't be copyrighted, only the embodiment.

Seems to me that based on the logic of the linked PDF file, both are fine, copyright-wise.

Now, if the dragon Godzilla is trademarked, that's a different story since that deals with "trade dress" and consumer confusion.

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) ;-)

not that it matters these days...

[Lxy]

But Zilla is a dictionary word.

You'd think they'd get the hint after Microsoft unsuccesifully sued Lindows, claiming that they owned anything ending in "indows". If M$ can't do it, how is another company going to?

Re:Ludicrous

[gengee]

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.

Toho's Mistake

[Guppy06]

See, they didn't name Mozilla after a Japanese movie monster, they named after a certain Blue Oyster Cult song. Big difference! :)

Re:Good

[J. Random Software]

Entertainment has its own trademark category. IANAL but unless Toho is offering Godzilla-branded telecommunication services, there's no likelihood of customer confusion and Toho has no legitimate right to crack down on unrelated uses (they're just proving the system can be abused by anyone with deep pockets).

Trademarks aren't about originality but authenticity and reputation. "Stealing" ideas is good--that's how civilization advances!

Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[sterno]

Here's the thing. Trademark requires that the holder of the trademark actively defend their mark. If they do not do so and it falls into common usage, it's too bad so sad for the trademark holder. So, even if you successfully argue that Mozilla infringed on Godzilla (are these really confusingly similar?), the judge will ask why they have let it exist for the past 10 years without questioning it.

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[SirSlud]

Yeah, but we all know that most of the leveraging, actions, and reactions happening in the world today is in no way connected to reality and legality - the world is run on threats now.

You know what that is? Stupid. It means its become more efficient and cheap to succumb to threats than to see issues through to their proper and (I can't stress this enough) correct conclusion. I have no feelings either which way in this case; what frusterates the FUCK out of me is that we'll likely never get to see who's right, in court.

Personally, I'm waiting for the laywer industry to reform its traditional garb and start dressing more like jocks and repo men.

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[FreeUser]

Here's the thing. Trademark requires that the holder of the trademark actively defend their mark.

Yeah, well, they are far too late.

'Godzilla' is a song by Blue Oeyster Cult that is a good twenty-plus year old.

'Mozilla' is the name of a browser that has been in widespread use since at least the mid-nineteen nineties.

'zilla as a suffix has been used in colloqual English for at least as long.

If they were going to complain about the likes of Davezilla or Mozilla, they should have done so eight years ago, before the terms came into common usage, not after.

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[mpe]

Here's the thing. Trademark requires that the holder of the trademark actively defend their mark. If they do not do so and it falls into common usage, it's too bad so sad for the trademark holder. So, even if you successfully argue that Mozilla infringed on Godzilla (are these really confusingly similar?),

Also trademarks, at least originally, were tied to both product area (hence you have both Apple Computers and Apple Records) and geography. AFAIK the browser people arn't making monster movies, set in Tokyo or anywhere else.

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[rlwhite]

They have to actively defend it against much more than Mozilla, rather anything else that infringes the trademark. The situation looks pretty awful for Toho.

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[Gaccm]

you're totally right, but in this 1 case, look who owns Mozilla. Something tells me that AOL might have a few lawyers lying around.

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[Slak]

Not to mention the fact that trademarks extend only to references of the word or phrase with respect to a certain "trade". This is why Microsoft isn't able to sue glass-pane makers over the term "Windows".

AFAIK and IANAL, Toho is going to have to prove that *zilla is in the same "trade" as Godzilla.

Cheers,
Slak

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[bay43270]

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

Re: Actually time advantage is to Mozilla...

[dvdeug]

'Godzilla' is a song by Blue Oeyster Cult that is a good twenty-plus year old.

Yes, and I understand that Blue Oyster Cult didn't see very much money from it, because of all the licensing fees they paid for the privlige of using the trademark.

Nonsense

[sys49152]

be advised that your use of the GODZILLA mark .. confuses consumers and the public into believing that your "GODZILLA" character originates from Toho

Nonsense, everyone knows that Godzilla originated in the depths of time and crawled out of the Pacific after the U.S. nuked the Bikini Islands.

Moreover, your use of the "ZILLA" formative ... 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

This is what is known as a portmanteau word. That is a word that conveys meaning by using parts of other words that have definite associations. Words such as smog (smoke and fog), or, more inline with davezilla, monicagate (Monica and Watergate), infomercial (info and commercial), and Linux (Linus and Unix). Whether this can be construed as trademark infringement is somebody else's call, but I rather think that The Almighty (God) and Homer (Trademark holder of the monster named Scylla) might have something to say about this.

Re:Good luck....

[xkenny13]

Not sure if it's on a search engine or not, but there's also http://www.missbobzilla.com/.

Lindows

[d3xt3r]

If Lindows is a not a trademark violation, than certainly neither is Mozilla.

Mozilla has nothing to do with Godzilla. Godzilla is a fictional character, Mozilla is a web browser and a user-agent. The term "Mozilla" as a user-agent has been around since the early days of Netscape. My guess is that any attempt to sue the Mozilla organization for trademark violation would be laughed out of court.

Re:Lindows

[coyote-san]

That's not a good analogy since many people felt that the "Windows" trademark should have never been granted in the first place (it's too close to a term of art, "graphical windowing system," and an existing product, "X Window System"(*), and confusion was inevitable.)

In contrast, Godzilla has only referred to a specific set of horror movies and they can legitimately claim a trademark on the name of their monsters. As others have pointed out, the claim on "-zilla" is too extreme and flies in the face of a decade or more of common usage.

(*) Before the MS astroturfers bother to "correct" me, Gates announced Windows 1.0 shortly before the first *commercial* release of X Windows. But X Windows had been in use in academia and elsewhere for years by this point, and you couldn't actually by the POS Windows 1.0 until about 2 years after the announcement (and it was close to a decade before the first practical and commercially successful version of Windows was released.)

Re:Lindows

[Fizzlewhiff]

Godzilla is a fictional character, Mozilla is a web browser and a user-agent. The term "Mozilla" as a user-agent has been around since the early days of Netscape. My guess is that any attempt to sue the Mozilla organization for trademark violation would be laughed out of court.

Rename Mozilla to Mickey and give it a logo that is a 4 fingered hand see how long before Disney jumps in. It doesn't really matter if ultimately you think it will be laughed out of court. Its the cost of getting it that far that often decides these things. How far can Mozilla afford to go with this?

It's Gojira nimnertz !!!!

[gelfling]

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.

Re:It's Gojira nimnertz !!!!

[hacker]

Gojira...

Gojirra...

Godzirra...

Godzilla...

Sounds like a logical progression to me.

Re:It's Gojira nimnertz !!!!

[ProfMoriarty]

The character and the movie is GOJIRA.

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

Just Great ... you mean they have to change the name (of the browser) to MOJIRA?? ... we have a tough enough time with Mozilla ...

Davezilla

[_ph1ux_]

doesnt matter if he is using the logo or name or not - the /. effect will prevent people from seeing any of his "infringments" and confusing DAVEzilla with a short japanese actor in a rubber suit knocking over bala-wood buildings.

Re:Ludicrous

[einer]

Not just Davezilla.com... Check out the list of other offending sites.

They didn't sue Blue Oyster Cult did they

[Arcturax]

This is seriously fucked up. I'm at the point where I think its time we simply declared open season on all lawyers. At least scumbag lawyers like the ones who write these kind of letters.

Sign up their email addresses to porn. Post their sites on portal of evil.com and watch them get trolled. Let the hack attacks begin. I'm sorry but its high time we the people put an end this the obscene litigation in this country.

Re:They didn't sue Blue Oyster Cult did they

[Arcturax]

The problem is, lawyers should be doing what is right within the law, not firing off dubious threat letters for pay. The lawyers should have told the company that this was a waste of their time and would likely result in bad publicity. Instead they took their money and threatened this guy who has NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG!

I did say that one should only do this to lawyers like this, and I stand by that. After all, they *didn't* do their jobs properly and if Dave had the resources to take them this to court, I imagine a judge would have agreed.

I thought it was pronounced...

[LBrothers]

Goh-Ziwa

At least that's what they always said in the movies.

Re:I thought it was pronounced...

[Cryptnotic]

No. Three letters. "go", "ji", "ra".

ALL YOUR FUNNY ARE BELONG TO THE MESOZOIC ERA!

[Hormonal]

Someone set us up the lame-ass joke.

Blue Oyster Cult

[Quixadhal]

Hey, don't forget to nail these bastards for giving you TONS of free publicity!

Oh wait, some of them are dead? Fine, the lawyers can sue their descendants!

In fact, screw a national ID system. Every American needs a Personal Assigned Lawyer. Then we can all just have our PAL's sue each other until the entire world collapses under the weight of our beloved democratic Red Tape (TM).

Damnit! I'm not OLD enough to be this SICK of our society yet!!!

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:Word existed before Godzilla

[zurab]

True. The naming "zilla" is present in different plants as well as spiders.

Re:Word existed before Godzilla

[phriedom]

But I don't think any judge is going to believe that Davezilla and Mozilla were named after the zilla plant, and have only coincidental similarity to Godzilla. Do you? I'm not saying that they are infringing on the trade mark, I'm just saying that it is obvious that they were named after Godzilla. I think there is a pretty strong chance that a judge will find that Toho is too late, that they have not defended their trademark, and that is has passed into speech not related to their property. But that is just my inexpert opinion.

Don't think they won't do it

[cryptochrome]

I don't know about trademarks, but Japan has some pretty strict copyright laws. You can't even use a picture or screencap in an article or webpage without their permission, and if you do they WILL go after you. As a result Japanese fansites are kind of pathetic - mostly text, with perhaps some hand-drawn artwork. I don't know if they have anything like a fair use clause, but I seriously of doubt it. Likely toho is fuming over this "disrespectful" allusion/homage to their creation.

Re:Don't think they won't do it

[Fjord]

Even under these strict laws, I don't see a problem, since Mozilla doesn't contain and screen captures of any Godzilla movies.

I agre with the previous poster that this is a trademark issue, and they will have problems applying their trademark so many years after a brand has been established.

I wonder if...

[dr_dank]

the token annoying Japanese kid in tight shorts will be on hand to testify....

Probably not, his dubbing would be unbearable.

Re:Good

[RazzleFrog]

Here is a TESS search for the Godzilla trademark. You can look through there and see what they have trademarks on.

Confused

[Shagg]

How does Toho sending a cease and desist letter to someone named Davezilla about naming a character on his site "Godzilla" have anything to do with Mozilla the browser?

Where in any of this is Toho threatening Mozilla mentioned?

Margerine doomed?

[Tablizer]

What about the margerine brand Mazolla? Are they being harassed also? If not, change the name to "Mozolla". What a difference a vowel can make.

Re:Margerine doomed?

[Tablizer]

(* It's 'Mazola' with one ell. *)

Then call it Mozolla. You missed my bigger point of altering the spelling so that it sounds more or less the same without *looking* the same or copying the Japanese monster spelling.

Wondering about Mangia Pizza (Austin)

[Loligo]

Here in Austin there is a small chain (three or four stores) of pizza places called Mangia's.

http://www.mangiapizza.com/

They use a large green dino-dragon-esque mascot (his name is Marty), and have a pizza called the Mangiazilla. Their catering truck at one location has a large molded Marty-zilla along the back. ... although now, having looked at their site, I notice very few references to Marty (one image on the "Fun" page, the patriotic banner on the front page has a reptillian hand/claw holding the pole), and the Mangiazilla pizza is no longer listed on the menu.

I guess they got their letter, too.

Isn't there some protection for places that obviously are not in a competing market? Couldn't a company make tiny pillows and call themselves Microsoft Bedding? Why don't the same protections apply to a web browser or pizza joint compared to a movie monster? Is it due strictly to the merchandising potential of something like a movie character?

-l

I think they should pull an Apple...

[Art Tatum]

And rename it 'Butthead Japanese Company' instead.

There's no reason to worry.....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Because at the end of Godzilla 2000 there's a little japanese guy that says that "There's a little Godzilla in all of us".

Don't know if that's legally binding or not.

Re:Going Nowhere

[langed]

Microsoft should sue Martha Stewart for using her MICROwave to SOFTen the butter, claiming trademark infringement.

Godzilla vs. Mozilla

[Junior J. Junior III]

What about Mojira?

Scientists need to act swiftly to develop a super robot version of Mozilla called Mecha Mozilla. It will be invincible!

So...

[Junior J. Junior III]

When is the Catholic church going to sue Toho for using "God-" as a previx? That's some age-old copyright there. Old enough that soon it'll get reclaimed by the next amendment to the copyright expiration laws. Toho better start quaking in their boots. Well, not quaking. Wouldn't want iD software to sue, after all.

Re:Ludicrous

[aronc]

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.

Where is...

[Pig Hogger]

Where is Ultraman when you need him?

Simple solution

[GMFTatsujin]

The double-l in "zilla" is actually the spanish phoneme, pronounced as a consonantal "y", as in "quesadilla" (kay-sah-dee-ya) or "llama" (ya-ma).

Thus, "Mozilla" = "Mo-zee-ya".

Problem solved.

Besides, after the $8 anal raping that was the american Godzilla movie a few years ago, I doubt that Soho has any respect at all for the trademark.

GMFTatsujin

This is a joke, right?

[mark-t]

I don't believe I'm mistaken that the term "godzilla" has been in public domain for decades as a generic term for a giant reptile-monster creature that goes around stomping on tall buildings and breathing fire. Although I won't dispute their alleged claim to the trademark on it, they should have been defending themselves when other people were using the term a loooooong time before this. At the very least, the concept of godzilla has been rehashed so many times, in so many forms, that the trademark on the imagery has certainly long since been voided.

Refer to Bayer's Aspirin for another (and probably much better known) example of this.

That blows my plans...

[MsGeek]

...to re(anti)christen my Celeron 433 box Dilzilla after upgrading it to a nForce 2 mobo and an Athlon XP. Dilbert+Bob The Dinosaur=Dilzilla. Its current netname is Dilputer.

I suppose after I upgrade Dilputer I'll rename it Alice. She and her Fist Of Death kicks ass. And I don't want ninjas from Toho Pictures swarming on Catseye Labs if I rename it Dilzilla.

Fragrant misreporting...

[Junta]

This is just a brand new low. This isn't just an editorial slant, this could be shown to be slandering Toho. There is no evidence that this in any way relates to a strategy regarding mozilla. The key issue with davezilla is that there is a portrayed character named godzilla on the site with a similar appearance, head on infringement. To say definitively that this is just their strategy to take down mozilla is just damn stupid.

Re:Fragrant misreporting...

[Huge Pi Removal]

As mentioned above (and in the Register where I first saw this story), Dave claims he *never* called his logo Godzilla. And it really doesn't look anything like Godzilla either.

However, I agree that tying in the Mozilla link was their excuse to post this somewhat non-story.

Mozilla was first, I think

[Ironica]

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...

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:Mozilla was first, I think

[John Hasler]

When was it first used in interstate commerce? That's all that matters.

Re:Mozilla was first, I think

[Dirtside]

The Constitution doesn't say that Congress only has power over interstate commerce -- it says they have power over IC in addition to other things, including trademarks, patents, and copyright. If you violate someone's trademark on a local basis (say, by selling Koka-Kola brand soft drink), they can still sue you even if it never leaves the state.

Re:Displaying Japanese characters in Mozilla?

[MsGeek]

What, you mean THIS real browser? It displays in just about any alphabet you want except Elvish, without any stressing about language packs. And there's no "-zilla" in the name, either! Konqui kicks butt.

Slashdot: The Preferred name in copyright defence

[Sir_Dill]

Who needs to sue these guys anymore....just post the intent to sue on Slashdot and watch the server crash. They can't infringe if thier server is a smoking pile of slag on the floor.

Maybe right, however

[einhverfr]

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."

Re:Maybe right, however

[einhverfr]

Besides, the simplest solution would to but a disclaimer on the bottom of the web page-- something like: "Mozilla is not affiliated in any way with Toho of Gozilla. If you are looking for their web site go here." This would effectively combat the "user concern" argument and their only argument left would be that it was diluting the value of their trademark. That is where the "why wait till now to bitch?" argument comes in handy.

Re:Maybe right, however

[seebs]

>Also, does this not go all the way back to the
>first incarnations of NetScape? Maybe even
>further? Why do they wait til now to bitch?

Presumably because, until the Mozilla project showed up as such, the name "mozilla" was not being *presented to the user*. And until 1.0, it wasn't being shoved at end-users as a thing to use.

Re:Confused

[geekoid]

welcome to slashdot, you must be new here. I can answer your question with 2 words:
Wild Speculation.

Fly Lice

[FreeLinux]

It's Fried Rice. You irriot!

Something stinks

[FreeLinux]

Misreporters should all be forced to shower on regualr basis.

Re:WWF?

[plugger]

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?

Re:Confused

[Shagg]

welcome to slashdot, you must be new here.

Well, not really.

Wild Speculation.

That's what I thought, but since www.davezilla.com was slashdotted I wasn't sure if he was involved in Mozilla any, or if it was a totaly unrelated case and people were just doing the "jumping to conclusions" thing with Mozilla being next in line.

-Zilla?

[erroneus]

That's a killa! Next they go after vanilla and [the artist formerly identifiable as] Michael Jackson and his "Thrilla." And what about Hanna-Barbera and their Magilla Gorilla?

This whole thing just makes me feel illa.

Obligatory Movie Reference

[PowerBook2k]

(From "Austin Powers in Goldmember")
Japanese Man 1: RUN!!!!! IT'S GODZILLA!
Japanese Man 2: It looks like Godzilla but due to international copyright laws...it's not.
Japanese Man 1: STILL, WE SHOULD RUN LIKE IT IS GODZILLA!!
Japanese Man 2: No, it isn't.
[Japanese Man 2 Winks at Camera]

Re:Bzzt

[nathanm]

Which one appeared first is irrelevant to this discussion. In order for a trademark to remain valid, its owner must defend it against every infringement they're aware of. Mozilla is well known and AFAIK this is the first Godzilla's owners have even raised the issue. The 4 year period of inaction signals they aren't serious about keeping their trademark.

God Sues Godzilla for use of Trademark Name

[RedWolves2]

God today files a lawsuit in superior court today against Godzilla for its use of the Trademark name God.

Will this never end?

Re:God Sues Godzilla for use of Trademark Name

[malkavian]

Hmm.. I'm sure if the Church really wished it so, they could dig up a load of old church laws, and burn the guy at the stake for heresy in taking the name God and associating it with a lizard..

Gozilla

[davidsansome]

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

It's about time

[ryanvm]

Well, I for one am glad to see this happening. I am sick and tired of the utter confusion that ensues while trying to figure out the difference between my web browser and the giant, destructive, dinosaur-like monster that attacked all those poor Japanese people.

Re:Ludicrous

[mpe]

According to Merriam-Webster, the string "zilla" doesn't exist in any English words.

Looking in one American dictionary is hardly an exhaustive search to see if it is in any English words.

Re:Ludicrous

[afidel]

Besides how does an opensource web browser compete in the same market as a movie franchise/toy franchise/cartoon franchise ????

Re:Not Zilla

[dark_panda]

Stan Lee created or co-created Spider-Man, the Hulk, a bunch of Marvel superheroes. Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel created Superman for DC Comics. And at that, the word "superman" was an actual word before Shuster and Siegel created Superman -- it was a translation of the German word "ubermensch", litterally a "super-man".

J

My site infringes too...

[moncyb]

HOLY CRAP! I just realized my website uses the letter 'a' many times. In fact my ISP's domain has an 'a' in it. Uh-oh, since Godzilla has an 'a' in it, they're going to sue the pants off of us!

Wait a sec...my friend uses the word 'God' in her site...they'll be going after her too! Oh the humanity!

If they own Zilla, God too?

[dnoyeb]

If they can complain about zilla, will they also complain about God?

Austin Powers 3 anyone?

[NotAnotherReboot]

Person 1: ITS GODZILLA!
Person 2: Actually, it's not actually godzilla due to trademark restrictions but we can still pretend it's godzilla.
Person 1: RUN, ITS GODZILLA!
Person 2: (but not really!) AAAHH!

Re:Origins of "Mozilla"

[Erbo]

Right...and it was Jamie Zawinski himself who named it. See his diary entries from that period...

A week or two ago we all sat around and tried to think up a name for the client; we can't call it Mosaic, because that's the name of the company [or was at the time -Erbo]. The marketroids had all kinds of silly suggestions like Cyber this and Power that and blah-blah Ware. Then someone said something about crushing NCSA Mosaic, and I blurted out ``Mozilla!'' Everyone seemed to like that, so I think that might end up being the official name of the browser.

Little did he know it was history in the making...

Then, of course, when Netscape decided to go open-source, he went and registered mozilla.org to house the new project.

good vs. evil

[eyeball]

Will somebody please register satanzilla.com before I do? I need another domain like I need another hole in my head.

Stupid laws

[kavau]

Has it occured to anyone that maybe Toho is bringing up this suit only to comply with the requirement that you have to actively defend a trademark in order to keep the exclusive rights to the trademark?

In other words: Let's say the company just sits around and does nothing about Mozilla, DaveZilla, WhateverZilla. A few years from now some toy company (let's call them ToyZilla.com) starts selling some green dinosaurs, calling them Godzilla. Of course Toho is going to sue them over trademark infringement, but ToyZilla.com's lawyers argue that Toho lost all rights to the trademark, since it didn't do anything about Mozilla and the like.

Therefore Toho's exec's say: Kill them while they're still small!

Don't blame the company for doing stupid things if stupid laws require them to do so.

ObSimpsons

[sharkey]

I used to own Mickey Mouse Massage Parlors, then those Disney sleazebags shut me down. Look, I said, I'll change the logo, put Mickey's pants back on, but there's just no reasoning with some people.

Legitimate infringement, but too little too late.

[Myco]

I'm amused by how readily /.ers will jump up in defense of anyone accused of any sort of IP infringement. The suffix "-zilla" has entered the lexicon as a direct result of the Godzilla franchise. If I start a restaurant and sell a product called "sandwichzilla," you know I'm talking about a big honkin' monster of a sammich. And if I use a reptilian mascot to hawk said sammich, you know it's a reference to Godzilla. The very uniqueness of the name, and its well-known association with a giant reptilian monster, is exactly why this is legitimate infringement. It's asking too much suspension of disbelief to suppose that I might have independently come up with the nonsense syllables "zilla" and chosen to associate them with the very attributes that the "Godzilla" trademark has made famous.

But Toho has taken far too long to say anything about it, and they have no legitimate grounds upon which to complain now. They failed to defend their mark, and now it's part of the common lexicon. It's like what we saw recently with the claims of a privately-held patent on the JPEG standard. Many people rightly quoted, uh, someone, saying something like "those who sleep on their rights cannot expect others to defend them."

Bah.. they won't get far

[GauteL]

If AOL/TW actually believe they'll go after Davezilla in order to create precedence, there is nothing stopping the big evil mamozilla of a companzilla from chopping in some gazilla in Davezillas defense, is there?

The Real Issue

[FrostyWheaton]

Nearly every comment here is missing the point.

The objection brought against the website is the use of the term "GODZILLA" in conjunction with an image of a reptile(godzilla)-like creature. The C&D letter did mention the use of the "zilla" suffix but only in conjuntion with the use of their trademark and the likeness of a godzilla-like creature. It appears that if the image and reference were removed, the company would no longer have a complaint.

As far as this being a pre-cursor to action against mozilla.... I can only chuckle. Even if the Godzilla trademark holders want to come after all the "zillas" out there (and I don't think they do), they would never be able to get a favorable ruling because this "zilla" construction has been used back into antiquity (in computing terms) and has never been challenged. So the courts would have to rule that "something-zilla" is no longer part of their trademark because it hasn't been protected

Re:Or better yet, Gamera!!

[Sc00ter]

Gamera is really neat
He is filled with turtle meat
We love you.. GAMERA!

God, I miss good MST3K

New name:

[acceleriter]

Butthead Japanese Filmmaker. (Along the lines of Apple's codename "Sagan," which was changed to "BHA" for butt head astronomer when Sagan whined.)

Don't jump to conclusions

[jayhawk88]

... to set a precedent before attacking Mozilla.

Um, maybe, maybe not. So far all Toho has done is asked Davezilla to change his logo. There's no indication that they intend to "set a precedent" and "go after" anyone else.

Granted, this all does seem a little suspicious. For all we know, though, some executive just had a nephew graduate from law school, and decided to give him a pet project to pad his resume. I'd say at least wait until the lawyer-letters go out before hitting the panic button.

Re:Legitimate infringement, but too little too lat

[bwt]

The suffix "-zilla" has entered the lexicon as a direct result of the Godzilla franchise.

Of course, Godzilla uses the suffix "illa" which was popularized by a human predecessors known as the "gorilla".

The bottom line in trademark infringement is that it turns on a "likely to cause confusion in the market". If you think the Mozilla software browser is likely to be confused with the Godzilla entertainment brand, then you have the intellect of a gorilla.

Re: .sig

[WowTIP]

Completely OT, but...

An 800 pound elephant? Is that a baby elephant?

Re:Bzzt

[nathanm]

We're not talking about common usage here. Mozilla is known well enough that a corporation trying to protect its so-called intellectual property would have been aware of it for quite some time.

If this were to go to court, the burden of proof that they just recently heard of Mozilla would be on their own shoulders. If they can't sufficiently convince a judge of this, and sat around for 4 years without challenging Mozilla, it would be promptly thrown out of court.

Re:WWF?

[Gorgonzola]

Yes, that is perfectly possible. In France you have a posh brand of lighting gear called Mazda while at the same time Mazda cars are marketed under the brand name Mazda. The two companies have nothing in common. I don't know about US trademark law, but under European trademark law trademarks are filed for market categories. That makes it possible that you have KLM airlines in the Netherlands and KLM clothing as well. The latter is a clothing brand for exceptional tall people. Both brands have been registerd by different companies for different market categories.

before Netscape there was Mosaic

[NFW]

I believe that's the root of the Mozilla thing. I also strongly suspect that whoever coined the term Mozilla probably knew about that the word Godzilla, and intended (however innocently - remember, this was basically a student project) to bring Godzilla to mind with the mention of Mozilla. I also strongly suspect that this person knew, or had reason to believe, that Godzilla is someone else's trademark.

I also strongly suspect that this person just slapped his/her forehead upon reading about the case in question. It was probably an innocent mistake by a person with a sense of humor and no idea that anyone outside their little comp-sci community would see it... Oooops. Don't you just hate it when pet project get out of control and take a life of their own?

One could argue that Mozilla now has a widely-understood meaning separate to Godzilla (especially considering that Microsoft sends a Mozilla string with every HTTP request), but it would take a lawyer to tell whether that's a meaningful defense. IANAL; I dunno.

Butthead Toymakers

[NFW]

If I recall correctly, once upon a time, Apple had a project codenamed Sagan. Codenamed, mind you, not actually released under that name. Even so, a certain famous astronomer complained. The project was renamed "Butthead Astronomer."

(I believe he complained again, and the name was changed yet again, but I'm not sure...)

Good! Mozilla was a dumb name anyway

[Sanity]

This may look like a troll, but I assure you it isn't.

I never liked the name "Mozilla" for a web browser, it might appeal to geeks - who might be amused by the Godzilla reference, but I very much doubt that it appeals to the general public.

It may seem silly that something as trivial as a name can have such an impact, but just try telling a non-geek "Hey, check out mozilla dot org, it is a really great web browser", watch their reaction, and think about how likely they are to look at it based on its name.

An actual date from Mosaic v0.4 beta

[Reziac]

[fires up oldest Mosaic version I have, checks under "Help, About"]

"Mozilla b0.4, Beta version 0.4, Sep 9 1994 at 16:59:43. Copyright 1994 Mosaic Communications Corporation, All rights reserved. win_cbug@mcom.com"

Re:Going Nowhere

[floop]

A quick search of google shows they have quite a battle ahead of them.

• gozilla.com
• gamezilla.com
• trafficzilla.com
• bowlzilla.com
• punezilla.com
• brad-zilla.com
• sketchzilla.com
• godzillascorner.com
• zillaclothing.co.uk
• zilladesign.com
• zillasports.com
• web-zilla.com
• Accton (a japanese company) has a hub product name zill http://www.accton.co.jp/products/ZILLA/top.html
• Zilla Monster cartoons http://www.offthemark.com/monsters/monsters.htm

The list goes on and on....

Re:While generally I agree...

[Danse]

Maybe this Dave guy should have told them that he ripped the name from Mozilla and that they should go sue AOL/TW instead :)

The letter about the *other* half...

[mengel]

re: Christ Church of God
Dear Mr. Minister:

...

It has come to our attention that you have incorporated the "GOD" portion of our client's GODZILLA marks in the name of your "Church of God" church name, and that you have included an unstoppable all-powerful being, which you refer to as "GOD", on your publications. Please be advised that your use of the "GOD" formative along with imagery associated with GODZILLA is likely to cause the users of your site to believe that the "Church of God" 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.

...

Mozilla means Little Girl in Spanish

[Swordfish]

Has anyone mentioned that Mozilla is a Spanish word?

It's in the dictionary from moza = young woman,
unmarried girl, maidservant etc.

So it's pronounced: mo-seel-ya,
or mo-theel-ya in Castilian.

Colour coded ratings

[xixax]

Haven't you noticed? The hue of a discussion is based on a sophisticated algorithm that matches the nett rating of potty-mouth comments in an article against an RGB lookup table of faeces samples.

Sort of like the hot-chillis you see in Eudora, but brown.

Xix.
(waiting for a baby-poo yellow thread)

Geez!

[gordzilla]

With nickname like mine, should I be worried too? :-)

Giant foot from sky lands on Japanese film co

[alizard]

While Toho [jp] probably can roll over Davezilla, if they go after Mozilla, they are going after Time-Warner-AOL(Netscape)... what happens if Time-Warner decides not to allow the broadcast of any Godzilla movie on any property they control, including on the air broadcasts from TV stations carried by their system?

That's just the beginning. I'm sure that this empire can come up with other nasty things to do about them.

Toho v Time-Warner-AOL = Bambi v Godzilla (an actual short flick, and another instance of lack of trademark defense)

'Zilla this, 'zilla that

[Bostik]

As others have pointed out, the suffix 'zilla' has entered common speech. Kleenex, Xerox, Hoover, ... - Well, it's not the first one.

Didn't Maxtor just name their gigantic hard drive Drivezilla?

Umm... yeah.

[torpor]

It'll blue-screen before he gets to Hawaii...

And that would be unusual how?

[rakslice]

Laying the smack down on a company just for trademark usage in their user agent string may seem a little far fetched. But keep in mind that US courts have found DNS entries to violate trademark rights in a number of cases. (And that's not even because the server could transmit the trademark-containing name, but only because of the IP address it replies with).

They're both just as flimsy if you ask me.

Mozilla already got their letter!

[tdye]

I have an exclusive copy on my weblog...

[wink]

Re:Strange

[Melantha_Bacchae]

BJH wrote:

> One theory says that the name came from "gorilla"
> + "kujira" (=whale), but that was thought up after
> the fact.

According to the textbook "A Critical History and Filmography of Toho's Godzilla(tm) Series" by David Kalat, the initial idea for Godzilla started out being a mutated octopus. Then it was designated simply with the letter "G" for giant. Finally, the name "Gojira" (derived as you said) was suggested to Tomoyuki Tanaka (the G producer from 1954-1995) and he approved it. Before the fact.

The mutated octopus did get to guest star in "King Kong vs. Godzilla", but only in a minor role. The actor (a real octopus in a tank) was eaten after his performance.

> The real origin of the name is the "Gojira"
> legend from Otojima, an island near Japan.

Yee, do you ever have that mangled! The island's name was "Oo too" ("Oo shima" on modern maps, "oo" means a long "o") English name would be "Big Island". The island is part of Japan, and the gatekeeper to the Sagami Sea. Godzilla has to pass it on the way to Tokyo Bay. Mount Mihara, in which Godzilla was imprisoned from 1984 to 1989, is located on the island.

The Gojira legend was in the movie "Gojira". I don't know if that part was based on reality (except for the "exorcism" appearing to be a Shinto ceremony). However, the Japanese religion of Shito does have a god of fire whose birth destroyed his mother. That god's name is Kagu-tsuchi. In "Mothra vs. Godzilla", the Infant Island chieftain refered to the hydrogen bomb a "godly fire".

Kagu-tsuchi has a younger half sister, the goddess of the sun born of the sea, who taught her people how to cultivate rice and weave silk (created from the cocoons of the silk moth), Queen of the gods, to whom the Japanese people pray yearly for peace and happiness: Amaterasu omi kami => Mothra.

He also has an even younger half brother, the chaotic god of storms, thrower of temper tantrums, associated with multi-headed dragons, causer of grief to his big sister: Susa no oo => King Ghidora.

If you've ever been to one in Japan (or read about them in G-fan), you'd know that when Toho puts on a display of Godzilla props in a department store in Japan, an essential ingredient, the first exhibit, is almost always a small Shinto shrine to the Dreaded God of the atom: Godzilla.

Yes, Virginia. There is a real Godzilla. There is a real King Ghidora. But thankfully, there is also a very real Mothra!

"Compassionate Sun, Sun Goddess, Great Mothra! Great Mothra! Mothra!"
Japanese language "Mothra's Song", "Ebirah, Horror of the Deep"

Re:While generally I agree...

[SirSlud]

If anything, that would seem to encourage even more rigorous defence of the trademark; if they interpret Dave as infringing, and he got it off Mozilla, that would seem to give them more ammunition in court that infringements are 'viral' and must be stopped at all costs.

Re:While generally I agree...

[Danse]

Actually, I would think that it would lead to the understanding that "*zilla" is really not deserving of protection at this point. Mozilla has been in worldwide use for 10 years. Seems to me that they've foreited their chance to make a claim about it. I don't know how courts normally look at a trademark issue and what standards they use, but it seems that the standards would have to pretty loose for their infringement claim to hold water.

OT Re: .sig

[moncyb]

Aaahhh...you're right. When I first wrote it down, it was probably supposed to be 8000 pounds or so.

Hmmm a baby elephant...like Dumbo. I've changed my sig to match something a Disney character would do. ;-)

Great American Sound Ampzilla

[phr2]

It's kind of late to add this but I remember in the 80's there was an amplifier called Ampzilla (connoting its high power) made by the Great American Sound Company. IIRC, it had a dinosaur-like logo sort of like the Mozilla logo. It would surprise me if Ampzilla wasn't registered as a trademark.