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."
It really hurts me to take microsoft's side.
Given that he registered the trademark a different category and could have a hard time arguing his case because of it, this sounds like a publicity stunt to garner some attention to his service before launch. After all, his complaint is that MS Vista is hogging the limelight; this will get him some of that limelight.
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
I can't believe I'm siding with Microsoft against a trademark troll. Time to turn in my geek license.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Try making a Software company called Walmart. What would happen with that?
> Try making a faucet company with the same name as Delta Airlines. Oh wait, that has already happened.
Try making a battery powered marital aid company with the same name as Italian power company PowergenItalia...
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
Microsoft will use the same tactic... keep the case tied up in the courts until the small company runs out of money and goes bankrupt... after which they'll "buy" the trademark from them by handing them a settlement check that will leave the company out of business, but not in any kind of debt.
When compared to these smaller companies, Microsoft has infinite resources... so they just take and use what they want when they want to... but (whatever Deity) help you if you try to just out-and-out use one of their trademarks or something extremely close to one of their trademarks for something.
OCO is Loco
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.
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 !
Gildas is an old pillard of French TV (married with a tv/radio host around his age), he started being on the air before TV was in color at a time where France was still using 110v for it's appliances.
He already manages and is deeply involved in the biggest private TV channel (Canal +). He produce a lot of stuff. He is in no way in need of any publicity for his channel, especially since his vista channel is aimed at French old people. Who never heard of the intarweb and are happy with their minitels.
So the frivolous lawsuit is in this case is really far fetched. He got a product name, want to protect it. He heard of microsoft because he might use it on his fancy color typewriter they gave him at the office. But that's all.
I'am not saying he's a poor good guy. He's a business shark. But from the old world and laught at words like neteconomy, VC capitals and may never have heard of the word web 2.0. He make his money the old way, it works for him, its not at his age that he will change.