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?"
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
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
Sniffer is such a generic term...perhaps a generic reply telling said attorney to "sniff my ass" is in order?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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
"it is not even a computer-term!"
That's exactly why it could be trademarked. A trademark must not be "merely descriptive" of a product or service. For example, Apple is a fine trademark for a computer.
However, I've never heard of Computer Associates' Sniffer brand, but I've long seen the term packet-sniffer used to describe network monitor programs generically. I do indeed consider it a "computer-term" and a generic one at that. Apparently the USPTO doesn't, which is not in the least bit surprising to me.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
It's a generic name for a non-destructive detection device.