Slashdot Mirror
Vista Trademark Holder Sues Microsoft
Liam Cromar writes "Philippe Gildas, a French television presenter is suing Microsoft for 'violation of intellectual property' — in particular the use of the 'Vista' trademark. It appears that Gildas registered the trademark two years prior to Microsoft's application, planning to use the trademark for a new television channel, Télé Vista, which was to be launched later this year. Apparently, Gildas believes that Microsoft's 'hogging of the limelight' presents an 'obstacle to the launch'. Gildas has not, however, registered the Vista trademark in categories of activity 9 and 42, which cover software. With this in mind, his case might be hard to prove."
But if a product is not even in the same market (OS versus Television station) there is no trademark infringement. Hence there is a company called prime which teaches truck driving and a company called prime that delivers medical services. Seems like a quick attempt to get money by somone who cane really make it themselves.
IANAL. There is no claim under trademark legislation as far as I can tell. It is unlikely that anyone would confuse a TV broadcast with software. IP is NOT protected under EU law per se. There can be copyright (which doesn't apply here) and patent (which also doesn't apply here). Bet he loses. And of course, being French there will be loads of US comment criticising his attempt. For once, it will probably be justified.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
They probably registered as "eTrex Vista" just like Microsoft more than likely registered as "Windows Vista" which is why they put a TM after Vista and nothing after Windows in their Windows Vista logos despite ALWAYS having an (R) on Windows in any art Vista isn't tacked on.
*nod* as much as I hate Microsoft due to their anti-customer stance in recent years, Microsoft is TOTALLY in the clear on this.
Hey dumbass! (Philippe Gildas, this means you)
Trademarks apply only in the very specific industry categories in which they are registered, and in order for the trademark to be protected, you must aggressively enforce your trademark as soon as you find any infringement (outside of fair use that is). For example; if there is no Microsoft-brand toilet paper and there is a trademark category covering toilet paper products, you can actually register a microsoft-brand toilet paper and market it as Microsoft-brand toilet paper, and be TOTALLY in the clear of any infringement against Microsoft's trademark. If you make your logo, etc. similar so as to intentionally confuse people in the marketplace and lead them to think you are associated with Microsoft of Redmond, WA, then it becomes infringement even though you would be otherwise legally clear. You have to go out of your way to confuse people though, for a legal infringement to take place.
Philippe Gildas, I hope they (Microsoft) countersue and own you in the end. You embody everything that is wrong in today's business world.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I agree that presenting Vista as only being applicable to a software trademark isn't realistic. For example, if someone were to have registered the trademark "Coke" for use with a TV station, people would expect it to be affiliated with the gargantuan beast that is Coke. Vista is a gargantuan beast much like Coke and will influence everyone's perception of the word. It's big enough, in other words, to be applicable outside of software.
Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.
Look, the law is what it is. You can say whatever you want about what people might think about a TV station named "Coke"; if Coke (whichever one) hasn't registered the trademark for that purpose, then they have no claim over it.
There are plenty of examples of different companies using the same trademark. Westinghouse, for example - the maker of Westinghouse TV's is a wholly different company than the maker of, say, Westinghouse solar landscape lighting kits. It really doesn't matter if the TV maker is afraid that the solar light company is sullying their reputation; if they didn't register the trademark, then they didn't register the trademark.
Most large companies will register as many trademark uses as they can think of for just this reason. They're smart enough to realize this. Here is, for example, the defined uses on just one of Coca Cola's many trademarks on the word "Coke":
Board games; checker sets; playing cards; card games; puzzles; balloons; hand held unit for playing electronic games; Christmas decorations and accessories of all kinds, namely, Christmas tree skirts, artificial Christmas garlands; Christmas tree ornaments; Christmas stockings; Christmas tree decorations; snow globes; sporting equipment and accessories for soccer, namely, soccer balls; sporting equipment and accessories for golf, namely, golf balls, golf tees, golf ball markers, ball cleaners, golf putters, divot repair tools, golf bags; sporting equipment and accessories for skating, namely, in-line skates, skate boards; elbow pads for athletic use; knee pads for athletic use; shin pads for athletic use; badminton game playing equipment; sporting equipment and accessories for fishing, namely, fishing lures; billiard cues, billiard balls, billiard game playing equipment and accessories, namely billiard bridges, billiard bumpers, billiard chalk, billiard cue racks, billiard cushions, billiard nets, billiard tables, billiard tally balls, billiard tips, billiard triangles, cue sticks for billiard or pool; snow sleds for recreational use; pinball machines; sport balls; toy vehicles; toy electric trains; toy model train sets; train set accessories, namely, artificial trees, turf, foliage, ballast, buildings, figurines, billboards, lichen and grass; toy banks, toy mobiles, multiple activity baby toys; dart board cases; dart boards; dolls and accessories therefor; plush toys; yo-yos; flying discs; inflatable toys
Another one:
Plates; cups; drinking glasses; tankards not of precious metal; mugs; tumblers; drinking steins; pitchers; decanters, goblets; ice buckets, coasters not of paper and not being table linen; serving pieces, namely, serving tongs, serving platters; serving trays not of precious metal; salt and pepper shakers; condiment holders, sugar dispensers and basins, toothpick holders; napkin holders; dispensers for paper towels; holders for facial tissue; fitted picnic baskets; trivets, cookie jars; canister sets, storage containers for household and kitchen use not of precious metal; party bowls; floral containers; bottle openers; straw dispensers; dinnerware, bottles sold empty; dishware, namely, plates, bowls, cups and saucers; creamer pitchers; candy dishes; spoon rests; flower pots; corn cob holders; cutting boards; cookie cutters; candle holders not of precious metal; bread boxes; bird houses of wood; cooking utensils, namely, grill covers; utensils for barbecues, namely, forks, turners; stove burner covers; recipe boxes; coffee pots not of precious metal; tea pots not of precious metal; utensils fo
Actually you can sue for dilution when someone uses a similar mark as yours even though the two are used in different industries. Likelihood of confusion is not a factor in a dilution claim. However, dilution suits are usually successful only when your mark is considered to be famous. I don't think he'd win on that. A good example is "victoria's secret" vs. "victor's little secret."
Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.... The point is, Coke registered these trademarks, no matter how small the item in question, because they knew they had to if they wanted to prevent others from producing these products. They know that they can't use the "we're bigger than they are, so we own all the uses of the word 'Coke'" trademark defense. There is no such defense.
Not exactly. You've made a reasonable and partially correct argument, but the grandparent poster was not wrong.
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, even as amended in 2006, lets entities who own famous trademarks bring trademark infringement suits against others who use that mark in other classes of goods and/or services even if the owner does not market products within those classes themselves. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) The 2006 amendments narrowed the scope of famous marks because every Tom, Dick, and Harry claimed that their mark was famous or had 'niche' fame, but you're arguing about the granddaddy of all marks, "Coke."
Normally you develop a trademark by actively marketing goods and/or services, and your trademark rights are limited to uses of the mark in association with similar types of goods and/or services. However, trademarks like "Coke" have enormous recognition and value, and the Coca-Cola Corporation cannot reasonably be expected to actively market goods or license the marketing of goods in every conceivable commercial sphere, even if it wanted to. (Coke brand sex toys, anyone? I think not.)
Coke, Ford, Gucci and the like are trademarks that are so distinctive that the rights holders do have the ability to argue 'we're so big we own [most of] the brand uses of the mark' and win. Contrary to what some have suggested in their comments, the owner of a famous mark does not own all uses of the word itself, coke is still a fuel for the production of steel or slang for cocaine and Ford is still a president or a shallow crossing point in a river, but not even the Coca-Cola Corporation has to pursue every commercial opportunity or outlet in order to prevent others from doing so.
The concept of trademark dilution has limits -- you can still find other Ford businesses and marks, for example -- but if the mark is truly famouns and there is a likelihood of confusion between the famous mark and the other use of the mark, the famous mark can quite possibly overwhelm the other mark, especially if it is comparatively new.
Who tagged this 'Patents'? Indeed, why is it filed under 'Patent Pending'. This is intellectual property, sure, but not patents. Actually trademark law is fairly sane in terms of what it offers - a guarantee that goods really are provided by the people who claim to provide them. And as the summary points out, the same trademark can be used by different people in different areas of business.
He registered the name "Vista" for lots of things, including software, as you can see on this copy of the name deposit (in french of course) : http://elephant.pcinpact.com/images/bd/news/42182. png
You might rather send someone else in prison for this article since it is completely wrong ! Mr Gildas does indeed own a prior VISTA trademark registration in classes 9 and 42 for software !!! I published copies of the trademarks at stake on my blog : http://tinyurl.com/yo79wp Please check the facts !