Lindows Takes a Hit in the Netherlands

diersing writes "The Register has the latest on it. Resellers of the Linux distribution Lindows in the Netherlands were ordered today to stop selling the product. Amsterdam judge Rullmann agreed with Microsoft that in many ways Lindows is 'profiting from the success of Windows' by infringing on Microsoft's trademarks." This seems to be a rather common occurrence lately.

Comments

TRanslated from dutch website

[tijnbraun]

I'm not really good at translating but I'll give it a try
Loosely translated from a article on WebWereld (dutch IT news site)

Dutch judge prohibits the use of the trademark Lindows
This conclusion was made by the Dutch judge Sj. Rullmann in Amsterdam on Thursday.

Microsoft claimed during court that Lindows violated its trademark and that the name Lindows is too confusing in comparison to its own product Windows.

"Lindows profits unlawfully from the success of Windows because Lindows.com too explicitly puts its product in the market as a product which is capable of running both platforms", according to the judge.

[I don't even understand the next line in Dutch but I'll try: ] Moreover Lindows distinguishes itself [huh?] from Windows because of its name [and] Lindows takes unjustified advantage from the [fuck knows: undistinguishablility?] and reputation of the brand Windows.

Lindows.com is summoned to cease the violation of the trademark infringement on the brand Windows. The software company of Michael Robertson is also no longer allowed to advertise in the Netherlands.

Furthermore the four resellers in the Netherlands must stop with the sale and advertisements of Lindows products.

Also the judge ruled that Lindows must ensure that internet users from the Benelux [BElgium NEtherlands LUXembourg] can no longer access the site www.lindows.com.

This verdict corresponds to earlier rulings of judges in Finland and Sweden. There the use of the names LindowsOS and Lindows became prohibited in December as well.

Lindows.com could change its name in the Benelux. According to Erik Vollebregt Clifford Change, the question whether this will happen is uncertain because the sales in the Benelux are not high, but it is up to the lawyer's office of Lindows.com [in the USA]

Vollebregt: "We just sent the sentence to USA. Hence it still must be determined whether Lindows thinks it makes sense and money worth spending to appeal to the verdict"

Re:TRanslated from dutch website

[ggeens]

how on earth can a Dutch judge restrict my ability (I'm Belgian citizen) to visit a particular website

From a fellow Belgian (not a lawyer though): trademarks are common in all three Benelux countries. This means that any judgment in one country might affect the other two.

Re:TRanslated from dutch website

[phulshof]

> [I don't even understand the next line in Dutch but I'll
> try: ] Moreover Lindows distinguishes itself [huh?] from
> Windows because of its name [and] Lindows takes
> unjustified advantage from the [fuck knows:
> undistinguishablility?] and reputation of the brand
> Windows.

The Dutch sentence is grammatically flawed to begin with, but the (similarly flawed) translation should read:
Moreover Lindows.com pushes against Windows by the naming of the product Lindows.com draws unjustified advantage of the distinguishing capacity and the reputation of the brand Windows.

Re:TRanslated from dutch website

[Tow_cow]

The Dutch sentence is flawed because the editor forgot to place a dot: the sentence is two sentences.

The dot should be placed after the first occurence of 'Windows'.

Re:TRanslated from dutch website

[Berzelius]

For the protection of a mark the Benelux countries have a shared law called the "Benelux Trade Mark law". A mark can be a name, drawing, print, a combination of a letter and a number, a shape or the packaging of a good or any other sign. It is required that the marks serves to distinguish the goods from an undertaking. The rights to the marks lapses when the registration is crossed-out, the term expires, and when the trademark is not used. The term of a trademark is ten years from the date of registration, and the term can be prolonged indefinitely with periods of ten years. In the Netherlands its implementation is called the Handelsnaamwet, rules the uses of a trade name, which is the name under wich an undertaking is conducted. It forbids 1) using a trade mark that, in contrast with the truth, suggests that the udnertaking belongs at least partly to someone else; 2) using a trade name that wrongly indicates that the undertaking would belong to one or more persons that act as a legal person, such as a firm; 3) using a trade name that is already used legally by someone else; and 4) using a trade name that gives an incorrect impression of the undertaking and that consequently misleads the public. To my understanding both 1 and 4 are being used by the dutch judge to judge as it did. Best regards, Patrick

Re:TRanslated from dutch website

[Berzelius]

A retry:

For the protection of a mark the Benelux countries have a shared law called the "Benelux Trade Mark law".

A mark can be a name, drawing, print, a combination of a letter and a number, a shape or the packaging of a good or any other sign. It is required that the marks serves to distinguish the goods from an undertaking. The rights to the marks lapses when the registration is crossed-out, the term expires, and when the trademark is not used. The term of a trademark is ten years from the date of registration, and the term can be prolonged indefinitely with periods of ten years.

In the Netherlands its implementation is called the Handelsnaamwet. It rules the uses of a trade name, which is the name under wich an undertaking is conducted.

It forbids
1) using a trade mark that, in contrast with the truth, suggests that the udnertaking belongs at least partly to someone else;
2) using a trade name that wrongly indicates that the undertaking would belong to one or more persons that act as a legal person, such as a firm;
3) using a trade name that is already used legally by someone else; and
4) using a trade name that gives an incorrect impression of the undertaking and that consequently misleads the public. To my understanding both 1 and 4 are being used by the dutch judge to judge as it did.

Best regards, Patrick

Likelihood of Confusion is Clear

[werdna]

The Judge's ruling regarding Lindows' free-riding is clear. In the United States, where the standard is likelihood of confusion, that element is really a slam-dunk. Virtually identically spelled, identically sounding names for the same class of product, and designed, in large part, to provide a substitute for the original product. Slam-dunk.

Where Lindows has had excellent success in the US, and more power for them for taking on this monster to do this, is by arguing that the term "Windows" is generic for a GUI-based operating system. If they win, Microsoft loses huge, just huge. Now only would Lindows be allowed to continue, but Microsoft would lose the Windows trademark as against anyone else.

Re:I Agree (and put on asbestos underwear)

[vidarh]

You must be reading a different Slashdot than I do. The Redhat haters always come out in force whenever Linux distro's get discussed on Slashdot.