Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NAI Sending "Sniffer" C&D Letters

Posted by timothy on from the zealous-lawyers dept.

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?"

4 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. McDonald's lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This is another example of lawyers engaging in frivolous abuse, just like when they participated in the ludicrous McDonald's Coffee lawsuit, in which a dreadful spiller made McDonald's pay for her own clumsiness.

    1. Re:McDonald's lawsuit by Murrow · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Actual Facts about the McDonald's Case

      A quote of the first paragraph:


      There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
      one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
      important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
      the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
      scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
      and muscle. Here's the whole story.


      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.
  2. After reading the full article: still frivolous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    There is nothing to make a trial worthwhile: she spilled the coffee, not McDonald's. McDonald's did label the coffee as "hot" which does include scalding.

    Any 2 year old knows the be careful around hot liquids and the hot water spigot, due to danger of burns. McDonald's should not pay because some moron ignores the warning and some ambulance chasers want to get rich.

    1. Re:After reading the full article: still frivolous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      "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."

      "testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
      thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds."

      Makes you wonder what the OHSA requirements for PPE (personal protective equipment) for pouring and handling that type of liquid are. Gloves and eye protection I would assume, and was anyone wearing these things? Nevermind the customers, the employees were in danger.