Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sued Over Bing Trademark
mentus writes "Bing! Information Design, a design company from Missouri, is suing Microsoft over 'intentional interference' with their trademark and claiming Microsoft had knowledge of the trademark when it relaunched its rebranded search engine. Microsoft legal representative Kevin Kutz states that he believes the case will be dismissed and that Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks and other people's intellectual property, and look[s] forward to the next steps in the judicial process.'"
I reserve my opinion until Mat Perry's declarations on the subject.
However, a trademark application for the name was not filed until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet.
Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for "providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing".
Aren't you obliged to protect your mark? Seems to me they have nothing on MS.
I can't find it, but hasn't this been discussed earlier?
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Uh, did this lawyer just fall off the turnip truck or what? Hate to tell you this Skippy Suit, but this ain't the first time Big Daddy Desktop has been in a courtroom for shit like this.
Microsoft definition of being "respectful" is cutting a check large enough to be bought out or go away.
"...a trademark application for the name was not filed [by the plaintiff] until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet."
"Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for 'providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing'."
Says it all really. This company didn't even bother trying to establish trademark rights until two months after Microsoft, after news of the new engine had leaked. This screams trademark troll.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Unless they are in the search-engine business, I'm not sure they have a trademark claim even if they were first. There is little likelihood of confusion after all.
Yeah, right. Microsoft always respects other companies trademarks. Except when they don't like them. Tell that to Lindows who Microsoft unsuccessfully sued for trademark infringement, and who eventually sold the Lindows trademark to Microsoft for $20 million.
Hmm. Microsoft got bing.com a while ago
WHOIS results for bing.com
Created on..............: 1996-01-28.
The Wayback Machine shows the first Microsoft Bing.com site (Coming Soon!) in 2003.
Now, Bing! is Bing.biz which is registererd (in Madeira, Portugal)
Domain Registration Date: Wed Nov 07 00:01:00 GMT 2001
and it says ion the web site
Bing! is a small design firm started in 2000 in St. Louis, Mo.
So, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but it looks to me that Microsoft started thinking about using this name back in 1996. If they didn't actually start using it until 2003, they will probably have to settle. If they did something back in 1996, as long as it was public, and they kept records, Bing! will lose.
If a business or trademark name is "deceptively or intentionally similar" to an established entity, it is technically in violation by definition.
The thing is that nobody had heard about Bing before MS. As such, MS wasn't trying to benefit from the fame that the name already had. If they began manufacturing footwear and chose Nike for their productname, I could see the motivation: Appearing to relate to an established entity in order to sell more. But creating a search engine called "Bing"? I don't think any of us had the first reaction of "Ah, like that Bing Information Designers?" but we all thought "Ah, what a stupid name. :D"
I'm not saying that MS didn't know of the company. They certainly should have researched more. But I can't understand why would they intentionally choose something deceptively similar to something that nobody had never heard of before. While MS knows that they can face anyone in court, I would assume their sizeable legal team had forced them to adopt strict and heavy processes to avoid this kind of stuff. To me this seems more like a fuckup committed by some very low level employees than anything decided by high management.
I was hoping a meme would catch on, to call it "binge," but that never happened.
I just call it "google"...
Bow-ties are cool.
Bing! and bing(TM) .. :)
I hear Zombie Bing Crosby is none too pleased, either.
Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy?
Are you suggesting a new name for Bing -- perhaps "Bung"?
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Ah, I see you have the lawyer that sues Bing! He is my favorite. You see, he works on a contingency basis and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Frankly, I think it's too bad for these guys. If they felt they had such a distinctive identity they should have trademarked it sooner. They had 9 years to do so and didn't bother until Microsoft introduced their rebranded search engine. Being in the design industry myself, we've recommended clients trademark their identities a number of times. These guys, working in the same space should have realized the same for themselves.
They don't even come up in the first 10 pages of a Google search so they apparently didn't bother doing much to promote themselves. Although the results are laden with references to the search engine I was able to find a couple of businesses in there, two examples being The Bing Group and Bing's Bakery.
Then there's the fact that the search engine and this company don't inhabit the same space at all, so whether or not they had been trademarked would possibly have been irrelevant. That said, anyone who knows about the search engine will probably make the connection when they see the name. Whether it will hurt them in any way is debatable, at worst it will be a conversation piece which will be easily explained away especially since they've linked it to the concept of a lightbulb. The problem is that this company doesn't even use their own identity consistently and the Guardian doesn't even get their name right. Their own site refers to the company as Bing! Information Design, but then elsewhere on the site they refer to themselves as Bing!
Considering that they're designers they're likely Apple devotees. They might feel wronged, but I bet they're relishing the opportunity to take on evil Microsoft.
Since it is such an obvious case, it is clear that MS's only motivation to settle would be to avoid costs. Hopefully, MS sees the moral hazard in encouraging such blatant criminal behavior, and instead decides to counter sue.
The very first complaint filed should be against the plaintiff's attorney, for failing to do due diligence. (This is a law in most states, I swear.)
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/video-introducing-bing-the-better-way-to-google/
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I seriously doubt anyone in the Slashdot crowd will defend Microsoft. No doubt this entire story will fill up with comments about how Microsoft is evil and doesn't respect trademarks (as it already is).
I'm drawing a comparison to a company that seems to be well loved by the Slashdot crowd that is doing the same thing.
If we're going to call out Microsoft for not respecting trademarks, why does Apple get a free pass?
I think it is a valid question.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Well in that case the trademark holder was an evil record company, not a friendly design firm.
Apple got into the music business alright, some 25 YEARS after originally taking on the Apple name for a tiny garage-based company in a business that at the time seemed very unrelated to selling Beatles music. And ultimately Apple Computer PAID an undisclosed sum (translation: a boatload of cash) for the right to use the name in music marketing. Apple and Apple did have an agreement prior to the most recent one, its just that Apple Comp eventually grew out of it, and it had to be settled again, and indeed it was.
Actually, Apple DID grab a very related trademark: the iCal name was already in use for some time by another software calendar maker, Brown Bear software. The Brown Bear software site now explicitly states http://www.brownbearsw.com/ical/icalfaq.html that Apple is using the iCal mark by license, and brownbear is still selling their own product with the iCal name. All without benefit of any headline lawsuit that I ever saw.
Naming your company after a common object is hardly stealing, I don't know where you would even have gotten that idea. You're not an Apple Records attorney, are you?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/video-introducing-bing-the-better-way-to-google/
Yeah, I knew somebody would provide that link... :) That was a good one...
Bow-ties are cool.
No, no, no. It should obviously be "Bong". And while they're at it, maybe change to logo to some form of star shaped leaf. I think that really would raise Microsofts credibility.
They are both computer software though, so Firebird (the database) had every right and obligation to protect their name. It's not like Firebird (the database company) was suing a mom & pop shop which makes handmade socks or sandwiches or something else in an unrelated industry.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I'd guess that the "s?" is a given considering what he's telling you to suck, no? (The again, in this day and age, maybe not...AAAAGGGHhHH!)
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Stacker.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I don't remember Firebird vs. Firebird as a legal case, bur rather as a PR case. And I was (and am) totally on Firebird's (the database) side, even though I've never used it. They had the name first.
Technically, I'm not sure they could have won a court case, as the two names WERE used in separate areas, but they should have been more respectful. FireFox, however, is a really nice name. (And, IIRC, Firefox changed it's name from Phoenix to Firebird because of a legal suit, so that may be what you're remembering.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Ned. Ryerson! Needlenose Ned, Ned the Head, come on buddy, Case Western High. Ned Ryerson, I did the whistling bellybutton trick at the high school talent show. Bing! Ned Ryerson, got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate. Bing again! Ned Ryerson, I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times til you told me not to anymore."
Bung is the past tense, as in, I really Bunged up that search. Bettered Google it next time.
lol: You see no door there!
Apple Computer paid Apple Records some $500M or so to buy the trademark rights from the record company in 2007.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Uuum, Slashdot? I thought you were with me on this one? How about actually commenting on where you disagree, instead of trolling with your mod points?
Or did you misunderstand me?
I said, that they can’t have the cake (respect trademarks) and eat it too (want a case to be “dismissed”, that is about Microsoft not respecting someone’s trademark).
I’m seriously interested how you, the moderator, will justify this obvious doublespeak.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I am not a lawyer, but that may not be relevant. You do not have to file to have a valid trademark.
That's the worst idea i've ever heard. What the hell are you smoking?
Point taken. A study in the moral hazards of being too anti-anything without thought for what could be worse.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
English words belong to the public, to the people, and should never be trademarkable. This includes Bing, Apple, Socks, Oranges, Articulate, Office.. etc If a company wants to trademark a name, then at least the name should not consist of just one word, and it should be distinguishable.
I'm not the moderator, but it's obvious:
Trademarks apply to the fields you are in ONLY. Microsoft using the name Bing for a search engine does not infringe upon the rights of Bing Information Design, Bing Carbureter, Bing Surfboards, Bing Nursery School, and that's just in the first 5 pages of Google. I'd go further but Google fucks up and loops back to page 1 if I click next on page 5.
So respecting trademarks would indeed be dismissing this case.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
They also stole the iPhone trademark from Cisco. Negotiations weren't going their way, so they just announced the iPhone and expected their devotees to stand for them and denounce the evil Cisco not giving up their trademark.
Naturally, they were right.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I do have some comments filtered, but I haven't seen a Windows vs Linux argument spawn from this, and it's been more than twelve hours since this article was posted!
Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
Bung sounds like what happens to you in prison: "Damn, Bubba bunged me again."
In the same way that you wouldn't get into trouble by selling your own OS and calling it "Microsoft Windows!"?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it