Slashdot Mirror


Sparc Sends SparkFun Electronics C&D Letter

moogied writes "SparkFun.com, a electronics component provider, has been sent a cease and desist letter by Sparc in response to the lengthy trademark process that SparkFun is participating in. The letter states 'Because the dominant portion of the SparkFun mark, namely, SPARK, is phonetically identical and nearly visually identical to SI's SPARC mark, and because it is used in connection with identical goods, we believe confusion is likely to occur among the relevant purchasing group.' SparkFun.com has provided the entire contents of the letter, with a breakdown of points it feels are most relevant."

11 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Sun should lose by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, now. They have SPARK in the name; they're an electronics company. The name is a playful moniker and nobody would ever confuse them with Sparc.

    When I was in the USAF they called the electricians "spark chasers". ANY electronics company should be able to have "spark" in their name. For Sun to lay claim to a common word that describes the first thing anybody thinks of when they think of electricity (when Sin's is spelled differently) is ludicrous. It's like the ApleFrosting company suing anybody who sells any kind of apple product wit "apple" in the name.

    I lost a lot of my esteem for Sun with this. I wonder if it has anything to do with Oracle?

  2. Next thing you know by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't wait for IBM to sue BMW because after all, both of them share the letters "BM" and that might confuse a lot of people. Disney could probably have a go at McDonald's because after all, Donald is the name of a famous Disney character....

          Hopefully Sparkfun won't get a retarded judge, and this will be laughed out of court.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  3. Re:Aren't you required to vigorously defend... by ngg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?

    You can also offer others a license to use your mark for some nominal fee, I believe. From a legal perspective (IANAL, by the way) I think that's probably just as good as litigating it. The problem probably comes from disagreement about what constitutes a reasonable nominal fee, and the licensee's concerns about their ability to control the use of their mark (eg, if someone who doesn't like the licensee tried to "steal" their mark by going through the licensor).

  4. Re:Umm by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IANAL, but Sparc International has a legal obligation to protect its trademark, correct? They may not want to pick on SparkFun but if they don't demonstrably protect their trademark, they can lose it.

    How do you protect your trademark without sending out C&Ds?

    In my perfect world (I put that in because otherwise some /. smartass will tell me how things really are, thanks) you wouldn't need to "protect" your trademark against obviously non-infringing non-assaults. And also in my perfect world, you would be penalized for sending out frivolous C&Ds when you should have known better. Again, in my ideal world, a panel of people with common sense would decide when you would have known better. Furthermore, in my perfect world, you will all agree with me and get together and take up a collection to buy me a fully functional animatronic Natalie Portman.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  5. Re:Happens all the time by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep. All you need is one jumped-up shyster snake...er "lawyer"... and we're off to the races again.

    If SPARC, or their parent corp Sun Microsystems, wants to be good citizens, the lawyer who sent this should lose his job.

  6. Re:Aren't you required to vigorously defend... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I might agree with you, but their trademark is "SPARC", not "Spark".

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  7. Re:Aren't you required to vigorously defend... by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?

    That doesn't mean you're obligated to make over-reaching claims about your trademark. The obviously correct position would be to send C&D letters to people using 'sparc' without permission. Perhaps even to a company that sold "spark servers". That's all that's needed. Their trademark on "SPARC" would not be weakened at all by the continued existence of "SparkFun".

  8. Re:Aren't you required to vigorously defend... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?

    If they were genuinely concerned about losing their trademark, while admitting that SparkFun is not at all likely to be confused with Sparc, they could grant SparkFun trademark rights for $1. Basically tell them "we agree not to sue you for infringing what we believe is our rightful trademark, in exchange for consideration".

    I'm tired of that damn "the law made me do it!" excuse. No, it didn't. There are plenty of remedies outside the courts that can accomplish the same ends.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  9. Re:Umm by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do you protect your trademark without sending out C&Ds?

    Dang - I just posted the answer above. But to recap: you license it. Sell the "offending" party the right to continue using their name for the minimum dollar amount necessary to create a binding contract (which I think is traditionally $1). That way they're in the clear, and in the event that someone else infringes in the future, you can prove that you're aware and have dealt with other infringers in the past.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  10. Re:Aren't you required to vigorously defend... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Scumbag lawyers don't get paid when gentlemen act like gentlemen and do things like that.

    This is about scumbag IP lawyers chasing ambulances looking for money.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. Re:Happens all the time by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And in general, you cannot trademark an English word when used for descriptive purposes. Given that SparkFun makes products that when constructed by hobbyists, almost certainly do precisely what their name implies, in order for SparkFun to be infringing, SPARC would have to claim that they hold the trademark for the word "Spark" when used descriptively, which simply cannot be the case. My prediction? If this went to court, SPARC would almost certainly get their asses handed to them, and SparkFun would probably get treble damages in their countersuit.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.