Slashdot Mirror
NAI Sending "Sniffer" C&D Letters
RayMarron writes "It seems that NAI's IP lawyers have been billing some hours recently by sending nastygrams asking companies/individuals to stop using their trademarked term 'Sniffer.' Steve Gibson of Gibson Research Corporation has received one. The full text is posted on his news server, and I'm sure one of our readers will post it here. Or visit news.grc.com, grc.news and grc.news.feedback groups. A student at Stanford received one as well and forwarded it to the faculty to handle. Both Gibson (relating a conversation with his IP attorneys) and Stanford's reply seem to agree that 'sniffer' is too generic a term to be a viable trademark and can't be effectively enforced. Is there an IP lawyer in the house?"
Well, if that is not cutting off one's own nose to despite one's face....
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Sniffer is just a normal word; it's not made up. This is just ridiculous.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
That really stinks. :)
Dear NAI,
We believe *you* are infringing on *our* trademark. Our ability to "sniff" is our livelihood. Not to mention, we hold prior art for any kind of "sniffing."
We will see you in court.
Sincerely,
Drug-Sniffing Canines
A quote of the first paragraph:
Read the full article for more. Having read it, I think there was enough of a case to make the trial worthwhile.
I don't see how a product liability case has much to do with a trademark case, though.
they earn more by forcing the question to be asked even though they know the answer.
I think the word "sniffer" is how they used to describe the early ether (C4-H10-O) addicts. Of course, there's a joke there about Ethernet and Sniffers waiting for someone else to make.
If it does go back to ether, then that's mid-1800's. It's a common word at that point, and not one you can register.
Odd that this one was granted.
All funny + mod points to you!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
never threaten students & or professors doing research , it just creates bad blood and pisses the public off . We already expect companies to go after eachother , leave the academics out of it.
The terms "sniffer loop", "sniffer probe", and "sniffer coil" have been in long use in the radio service industry - they all refer to a probe used to sample the H field near a coil in an RF circuit without affecting the circuit (much...).
Google search
www.eFax.com are spammers
"Nevermind the customers, the employees were in danger"
No more than anyone who has ever turned a hot-water faucet. I wonder how many of the employees, if any, filed similar frivolous lawsuits?
But, in fairness, I think someone actually trademarked "Apple" too! I'm not sure on this: I have heard that there is a computer company with this name, but I can't find them in stores and I don't know anyone who has one.
Differently seen companies chasing their tails in copyright infringments, ....
,lot of publicity (for sure) and a lot of hits on their website ,
trade protocol violations and intellectual property rights
are generally the ones which are going to fall pretty soon.
Short on cash and not being able to earn/fund the millions they were used to in the dotgone era they are metamorphosing into scavengers and opportunists
SCO is a shining example
The crummy economy is bringing out the best in a lot of Companys, their legal team thinks, "we are getting irrelevant (as a team) , lets think up something to make some money and make sure we dont' get laid off," "hmmm... patent # 5551212 seems to be worth looking into"
and there starts their Road to Hell
Easy money (or so they think)
so there's a new concept for you
the legal team is now the marketing team
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
Unless I'm very much mistaken thats a trademark for DUS-TEK a type of vacuum cleaner.
It seems that NAI's IP lawyers have been billing some hours recently by sending nastygrams asking companies/individuals to stop using their trademarked term 'Sniffer.'
That's ridiculous! It would be like, I dunno, Ralph Lauren suing the U.S. Polo Association, claiming that Polo clothes owned the name of the sport.
Oh, wait, Ralph Lauren did do that.
Of course, he didn't win.
Oh wait, he did win:
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
No, I just believe that if you are clumsy it is your own fault. And, just in case, don't put hot liquid containers at your crotch.
This utterly frivolous case is an excellent example of why we need tort reform so either this never happens again, or those involved (lawyers and plaintiffs) end up tossed in the clink.
"You have 180 degrees F hot water faucets?"
As long as they are labelled "hot", it does not matter.
Did you miss this part or are you just completely insane?
"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee."
"You insane. Hot water is too hot if it's over 120 degrees. Just saying hot isn't true."
It is very true, as it is hot. Little children are taught that "hot" can burn. Have you forgotten this? Time go to back to kindergarten, mister fulghum.
You are the heartless troll do actually want people who have nothing to do with any of it to pay because some oaf decides to spill coffee into her crotch. Textbook example of frivolous lawsuit.
Why don't you go trip on a sidewalk, get a scratch, and sue the cement factory for a couple million.
The letter at grc.com constantaly spells "sniffer" as "SNIFFER(R)". How can the two be confused? I've heard "sniffer" for years without any mention of Computer Associates. If I saw "SNIFFER(R)", then there's no confusion that it is probably a product of some kind, but confusing "sniffer" simply doesn't make sense (it's a generic term for software that sniffs--it's a verb, too!--packets from a network transmission).
By the way, from the letter: "This includes, but is not limited to, the use of "Sniffer" in any meta tags, source code, key words, domain names, glossaries, indexes and the like associated with your web site(s)."
This is simply assinine. Source code?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Why, wouldn't you know it, IAAIPL (I am an IP lawyer)! Sadly, yes, this is enforceable. "Sniff" is too broad a term to trademark, but "sniffer" is certainly not. Check findlaw.com's take on trademark dilution. NAI believes these's peoples' use of the term "sniffer" dialates their trademark.
However, I think in this case they've gone too far. There's a C&D letter they also sent to the Children's Television Workshop after the Sesame Street producers gave Snuffleupagus HIV last year as part of a bid to raise kids' awareness of AIDS. Apparently NAI didn't want their trademark associated with wherever Snuffleupagus was keeping his "sniffer"
Consensual sex is boring.
The facts (if they are such, originating from a crooked ambulance-chaser web site) you present are very misleading. Notably missing are these facts:
1) the coffee is labelled hot
2) The woman spilled the coffee herself. Yes, herself. It is her own doing.
" styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat"
Just one wacky fact, devoid of the context of the hot popcorn and other dishes we take out of the microwave, and other ovens, that we have to be careful with!
The only lawsuit needed here is one where the spilling oaf pays McDonalds every penny she got, along with punitive damages for the hassle of a lawsuit without any merit at all.
It is time for us to register Network. Then we can surely get some $$$ from NAI (an a whole lot of others)!
So the plan is:
1. Register Network
2. Sue everyone
3. Profit!
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Beverly Garrard
Worldwide Trademark Manager
Legal Affairs
Judging by her title, and the fact that the company had allocated such a position, it looks like somone's trying to justify her existance.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Sniffer was a commercial product from then Network General and came out at least by 1987. But they called it "The Sniffer" , which seems to have more of a brandname like sound to it.
And another Usenet post shows that at least as early as 1994 they were quite conscious of its growing use as a generic term and tried to deter it.
Maybe they should have been more proactive in stopping it use as a generic term, but it is a fine line to walk for companies since getting to be the "Kleenex" of your market niche makes you the defacto standard.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
From the link you provided, it looks like Lauren sued the USPA over its lisencing of Jordache's use of "Polo" as a clothing label. You imply he sued them over the word itself, which would be ridiculous. However, it is not unreasonable to argue that, while Lauren did not invent the term "Polo" in reference to a sport, he did establish it vis-a-vis clothing. Jordache's "Polo" line could seem to be a direct competitor, and thus an infringment.
June 30, 2003
Re: Infringement and Dilution of SNIFFER Trademark
Dear Mr. Gibson,
As you may be aware, Network Associates, Inc. ("Network
Associates") is a leading company in the field of computer
network management and security. One of the company's best known
brands is SNIFFER®. Through our business unit, Sniffer
Technologies, Network Associates creates and markets widely
recognized computer software and hardware for monitoring
computer networks. The company also maintains a web site to
promote these products worldwide. Network Associates owns
approximately 45 trademark registrations for the SNIFFER®
trademark around the world. Sniffer® brand products are made
only by Network Associates.
It has come to the attention of Network Associates that you are
using our trademark in association with several products such as
SPYNET. We are also concerned about the generic use of SNIFFER
throughout your company web site. As a result, your use of this
name and other product names that you advertise on your company
web site are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception
among the public, who are likely to believe that these products
are somehow associated with or approved by Network Associates.
In addition, the generic use of our SNIFFER® trademark
contributes to the dilution of our mark's distinctiveness. For
future reference, please note that SNIFFER® is only to be used
in association with our company's products.
You should know that Network Associates takes intellectual
property matters seriously and considers the SNIFFER® brand to
be one of its most valuable assets. While we seek an amicable
resolution to this matter, we will not hesitate to assert our
superior rights if necessary.
Accordingly, Network Associates requests that you promptly cease
all use of the name "SNIFFER," or any other name related to or
used for any products you and or your company(ies) are
associated with that are identical or confusingly similar to our
SNIFFER® trademark. This includes, but is not limited to, the
use of "Sniffer" in any meta tags, source code, key words,
domain names, glossaries, indexes and the like associated with
your web site(s).
Please confirm your intentions as soon as possible, and in no
event later than July 15, 2003. Thank you for your anticipated
cooperation.
Sincerely,
NETWORK ASSOCIATES, INC.
<<signature>>
Beverly Garrard
Worldwide Trademark Manager
Legal Affairs
I mean come on... I can accept that SCO owns UNIX or Microsoft owns everything else, but owning the word "sniffer"???
it is not even a computer-term!
So I guess My Windows(r) Sniffer(tm) product I'm developing should be canned then?
Perhaps these idiots should go NAI themselves
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Try the Gap stories by the same author.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
So, anyone know if this has been resolved yet? After all, the letters are dated February and April of 2002.
Try the Gap stories by the same author."
How utterly dreary: stories about a shopping mall chain.
Registration number 1582251 is for Dus-tek, that's funny.
1645824 is for Sniffer, they filed for it May 30, 1989.
Now the discussion is if it is a valid trademark or not. I would guess the term sniffer was in widespread use before 89, so it is probaly not an issue.
AOL!! It's NP-annoying that people get away with this bullshit. You spill hot coffee in your lap, it's your own g*ddamn fault, g*ddammit!
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Trademark registration can be done entirely on-line, and it's easy. It costs a few hundred dollars, but it's much cheaper than litigation.
It's a generic name for a non-destructive detection device.
My dog has a sniffer. And he uses it everywhere and he could care less about your IP crap.
Matter of fact, I think my dog invented the "sniffer"...
Now, sniff my butt and go away luser...