Slashdot Mirror


LucasFilm Sues Jedi Mind Over 'Jedi'

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the force is strong with LucasFilm's legal department, as they've sued the company Jedi Mind for trademark infringement and breach of contract, among other things. While LucasFilm doesn't actually own a trademark on 'Jedi,' it claims that its related marks are close enough, and that Jedi Mind had agreed last year to phase out the use of 'Jedi' in its name and product names."

212 comments

  1. No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's using Lucas' neologism to specifically call attention to the similarities between his products and the abilities of the characters that the neologism belongs to. Is there any way in which this is not a textbook correct application of trademarks?

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:No brainer by afaik_ianal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there any way in which this is not a textbook correct application of trademarks?

      Don't trademarks needed to be registered to be enforced?

    2. Re:No brainer by shentino · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, the part where LucasFilm's 800-lb gorilla run legal department says "I have altered the situation, pray that I do not alter it further."

    3. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not the classical view of trademarks, where the purpose is product identification. Maybe in the new view, where every idea is to be milked to death, no matter if the company has a product to confuse with or not.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:No brainer by magnus.ahlberg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't trademarks needed to be registered to be enforced?

      Actually no they do not. There are (at least) two ways to gain a trademark:

      • Registration, which is the safest one, since you know whether you have a trademark or not. This is usually marked with the (R)-symbol
      • Usage/Establishment (the legal term in Sweden is "inarbetad", I actually don't know the english equivalent), by consequently using a brand name in a certain way to market a product, service etc. you may gain trademark rights if the brand becomes part of the public awareness. Usually the TM-symbol is used to show that a company intends to use this as a trademark but it is not registered.

      Trademark law varies a little from country to country and please consider this a simplified explanation. IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

    5. Re:No brainer by afaik_ianal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, you're absolutely right. According to Wikipedia, the non-registered one's are called "common law marks" in the US.

      IANAL either, AFAIK.

    6. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given Lucas' rampant brand-whoring, I would've thought it was a reasonable argument that anyone seeing a product marked "Jedi X" would assume it came out of the Lucas stable.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      A moron in a hurry might indeed believe that "Jedi X" is somehow about Star Wars, but given the lack of any and all Star Wars imagery, not to mention actually registered or specifically used Star Wars related trademarks (like Star Wars, that starts just about every game title, the most likely candidates, for confusion, LucasFilms or similar) and the rather straightforward description of what it does (let's you control computers in conjunction with a special input device, no implications of anything Star Wars related), no one else should.

      Yes, it uses a word coined in context of Star Wars but unlike, say, "Star Wars" it isn't generally used on it's own to identify related products, and certainly nothing that would amount to a glorified input driver. On the other hand it is commonly used by the general public to identify various things with Jedi-like attributes, that are not otherwise related to Star Wars, this is what the company is aiming at, not trying to confuse the general public that they getting genuine Star Wars software.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    8. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A brand of devices that let you control objects with the power of your mind, called Jedi, has "no implications of anything Star Wars related"? It's pretty obvious what allusions to the movies he's trying to make.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:No brainer by yyxx · · Score: 1

      He's using Lucas' neologism to specifically call attention to the similarities between his products and the abilities of the characters that the neologism belongs to. Is there any way in which this is not a textbook correct application of trademarks?

      Where can I buy a "Jedi"? Does "Jedi Mind" make the same category of product? If not, there should be no trademark infringement.

      The sole purpose of trademarks is to protect buyers; it is not to give companies additional revenue sources.

    10. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      A brand of devices that let you control objects with the power of your mind, called Jedi, has "no implications of anything Star Wars related"?

      Can you show me something besides the word Jedi that implies a connection?

      It's pretty obvious what allusions to the movies he's trying to make.

      Yes, as discussed in my post, to the general application of the word Jedi, to things that are perceived as having Jedi-like attributes without being otherwise related to Star Wars, if you have a beef with that conclusion, then let's hear it. But a hanging implication of what allusions you consider being made are not leading to a good discussion.

      If you see specific allusions to the Star Wars franchise, besides the word Jedi, then I'm interested to see them. If all it is, is a (rather far fetched) reference to Jedi powers, then I don't see ground to confuse, not just vaguely associate, it with anything that LucasFilms or their partners are selling.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    11. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      If you want something more substantiative, there's Mattel's licenced Star Wars mind-controlled "Force Trainer" toy. Clearly Lucasfilm thinks there's enough of a connection between moving objects with thoughts and Jedis' use of the Force to manipulate objects with thoughts, for them to put out an official licenced product on that premise.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Trademark law varies a little from country to country and please consider this a simplified explanation. IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

      IHALD - I Have A Law Degree

      Not to mention it makes you sound like an evil Apple product that constantly taunts a guy named Dave.

    13. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Passing off" can occur without there needing to be a strict overlap of product type. All that's required is the implication that the product comes from a particular source. This is especially the case where the trademark is unique and only appears in language in connection to, as is the case with "Jedi", or would be the case with "Optimus Prime". Neither Lucas nor Hasbro needs to put out a branded range of snow shovels with that name for me to infringe on their trademark with my own line of spades, and it'd be pretty difficult for me to argue that I have a good faith reason to be using those names.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    14. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      Ok, you have a product that doesn't even have the word Jedi on it! Clearly LucasFilm doesn't consider Jedi to be a trademark even in this particular case. What it does have is the Star Wars logo, and a lot of related imagery. Things that are notably absent from anything that I've seen in Jedi Mind promotional materials.

      I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the classical sense. And even under modern interpretation it would probably take a bit to spin it in their favor.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    15. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      "I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the classical sense"

      Their repeated use of the word "Jedi" in naming products is the use of a trademark in the classical (by which I assume you mean common law) sense. I think what you mean is "I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the sense that I have defined to allow me to win this argument".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    16. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 0

      Their repeated use of the word "Jedi" in naming products is the use of a trademark in the classical (by which I assume you mean common law) sense.

      By classical sense I mean, likely to cause confusion, instead of just charging an economic rent on a word. There are no products named Jedi, Jedi is used in movie/book/game that are prominently marked with the Star Wars trademark as the main identifier. Where are the Star Wars products labeled Jedi without a prominent Star Wars logo/identifier?

      I think what you mean is "I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the sense that I have defined to allow me to win this argument".

      Show the confusion. Not some toy that doesn't have the word Jedi on it.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    17. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      "Passing off" doesn't require a strict demonstration of confusion where the mark is distinctive enough, and sufficiently strongly associated with a particular maker that there's no good-faith reason for anyone else to be using it. And your requirement that the products bear no other trademark has no legal basis either.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    18. Re:No brainer by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Wait.. if I want to buy the official Star Wars "mind control" toy, I have to buy the one without the word Jedi in it?

      Yeah, that's not confusing at all.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    19. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      "Passing off" doesn't require a strict demonstration of confusion where the mark is distinctive enough, and sufficiently strongly associated with a particular maker that there's no good-faith reason for anyone else to be using it.

      You are talking about dilution, which is distinct from traditional trademark laws. Furthermore I repeatedly gave a good-faith reason of a cultural reference whose scope has outgrown the source. Lastly, common law trademarks are indicated by the superscript TM, indicating intent to use the word, or phrase, as a trademark. Any examples of even such a simple thing?

      And your requirement that the products bear no other trademark has no legal basis either.

      I never postulated such requirement. I merely argued that the prominent and consistent use of the Star Wars drastically reduces the likelihood of actual confusion.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    20. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      Wait.. if I want to buy the official Star Wars "mind control" toy, I have to buy the one without the word Jedi in it?

      Strangely enough you have to buy the one that has a huge Star Wars logo, Yoda and a kid with Jedi effects on it. Clearly, that only suggests that it might be an official Star Wars product... As you said yourself, official Star Wars toy, not official Jedi toy.

      Yeah, that's not confusing at all.

      The only confusing thing is that LucasFilm doesn't consider Jedi to be an effective trademark. If you can't get Jedi® toys, that is their failure.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    21. Re:No brainer by OtakuPersona · · Score: 1

      As others have said they don't need to register a trademark to enforce it. In any case Lucas owns multiple 'JEDI' trademarks (in addition to trademarks which contain the word 'JEDI'). LucasFilm trademarks for 'JEDI' include trademark 78488803 (registered 25 May 2010), 2595365 (registered 16 July 2002), 2823661 (registered 16 March 2004) and 2858244 (registered 29 June 2004).

    22. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about "passing off". Google it.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    23. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      LucasFilm has fifty registered trademarks containing the word "Jedi", many of which are just the word "Jedi", most of which are still live.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    24. Re:No brainer by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The use of "TM" is not required, it's a courtesy. If you actually knew anything about the law on this issue you'd be aware of that. Reducing the likelihood of confusion is nice, but it's not going to make much of a different in a case as clear-cut as this, any more than releasing a Buzz Lightyear grill set without "Toy Story" on it would be.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    25. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer IANALFAPP (I Am Not A Lawyer For All Practical Purposes)

    26. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you show me something besides the word Jedi that implies a connection?

      Way to be obtuse. Something that lets you use your mind to control objects called Jedi Mind doesn't show you the connection? If so you're retarded, sorry.

    27. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

      IANLE - I am no longer evil? :-P

    28. Re:No brainer by daveime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it would be perfectly okay for me to write a suite of novels entitled :-

      Angus Pigsnot and the Philosopher's Stone
      Angus Pigsnot and the Chamber of Secrets
      Angus Pigsnot and the Prisoner of Azkaban
      Angus Pigsnot and the Goblet of Fire
      Angus Pigsnot and the Order of the Phoenix
      Angus Pigsnot and the Half-Blood Prince
      Angus Pigsnot and the Deathly Hallows

      And J.K.Rowling cannot get even the slightest bit upset ? After all, the "main" trademark is not being abused.

      Now perhaps, you see how silly your argument sounds ?

    29. Re:No brainer by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      Lucas invented the word 'Jedi' to be used within his Star Wars venture. To use it for anything else borrows from good faith of the Star Wars franchise and is unfairly piggy-backing upon that good faith. Just because Lucas is making money hand over fist, it doesn't mean that it is unfair. The last I saw, capitalism was still considered fair, and even desirable, in most cultures.

      Discuss..

    30. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

      ICPTB (I can't pass the bar) also works for alcoholics

    31. Re:No brainer by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a way that this is not a textbook application of trademarks. Does LucasFilms sell a product similar to the defendant in this case using the "Jedi" trademark? If they do not, then there is no trademark infringement.
      In this case, I think that LucasFilms does actually sell products in a close enough market segment that there is a possibility of confusion. However, I have recently noticed a tendency of entertainment companies (and some others) to try and prevent people in unrelated industries from using words that they coined (or popularized in a particular context). For example, I think there is a good chance that either if I sold treehouse plans called "Ewok Shelters" I would be sued by LucasFilms for trademark infringement even though LucasFilms does not sell treehouse plans (or any other plans for building a structure).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    32. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAWL - I'm a wannabe lawyer

    33. Re:No brainer by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Yep it's a No brainer because of what's known as "Brand Awareness". That's what Lucasfilms is protecting and it's what Xerox Lost in the Early-mid 70's in regards to photocopiers. In that case, it was "Trademark Dilution" that Xerox Suffered because xerox become the common usage term meaning to photocopy something. Once that happened, they lost the "Brand Awareness" aspect of the Trademark that they'd had on Xerox.

      In this case, LucasFilm's is pursuing the only legal avenue to prevent "Trademark Dilution", which is to sue any and everyone who violates the damn thing, even in casual usage. Otherwise, it begins eroding the "Brand Awareness" aspect of their Trademarks, which is the beginning of "Dilution".

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    34. Re:No brainer by Psiren · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How about DUFAOATGOTSIOAIISAUPTTDARGOMT (Don't Use Fucking Acronyms Once And Then Go On To Spell It Out As It Is An Utterly Pointless Thing To Do And Really Gets On My Tits!)

    35. Re:No brainer by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The sole purpose of trademarks is to protect buyers; it is not to give companies additional revenue sources.

      Says who? Not the SCOTUS, which summed it up as:

      "[T]rademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, 'reduce[s] the customer's cost's of shopping and making purchasing decisions,' for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that the item with this mark is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation related rewards associated with a desirable product."

    36. Re:No brainer by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

      I thought the law degree made you a lawyer (a person learned in law) anyway. Just don't go around calling yourself "attorney", "solicitor", "counsel", etc.

    37. Re:No brainer by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      NALBLD
      Not A Lawyer but Law Degree

    38. Re:No brainer by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I think the point being made is that the word "Jedi" is, by itself, a prominent Star Wars logo/identifier. By your logic, trademarks wouldn't be valid unless they go out in herds.

      "Jedi" is not "Windows". It had no common meaning--no meaning in English at all, since it didn't exist--until Lucas conjured it up entirely in association with his media milieu. So, the word "Jedi" isn't a bad trademark because it's unsupported. "Mercedes" is a trademark, entirely self-supported, in the trade realm of cars and trucks, even though it has other non-trademark uses (like, a mildly uncommon female given name, from which the trademark is actually derived).

      "Jedi", it could be argued, is bad because it's a trademark for a very odd trade realm: an fantasy metaphysical system, with associated entanglements into paranormal (telepathy, psychokinesis, etc). Not really a service, trade, or product. However, that puts it into the ranks of Scientology (which is also a trademark), except that Lucas isn't apparently taking the faux-religion thing seriously. (Or pushing it seriously as a cult. Or maybe it's just a really successful cult, because neither its external observers nor its members even realize it's a cult.)

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    39. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CPTB (Can't Pass the Bar)?

    40. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would do better to refrain from mentioning the degree - remember that lawyers are protective of their monopoly, even moreso against those who infringe upon it when they should very much know better. The person most likely to be accused of practicing law without a license is the person who has the degree but has not the license.

      Plus, you're essentially saying that you're haughty enough to believe yourself correct and your opinion virtually incontrovertible even though you do not take the care in researching and expressing it that is required of licensed attorneys. In other words, mentioning your degree does nothing to bolster the validity of what you say. If you feel compelled to issue a disclaimer, is it not better to hold your tongue?

    41. Re:No brainer by the_xaqster · · Score: 1

      I prefer IANALFAPP (I Am Not A Lawyer For All Practical Purposes)

      I don't anal fapp, and really would not advertise it if I did!

      --
      I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
    42. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL either, AFAIK.

      Are you saying you might be a lawyer, but you don't have sufficient data one way of another to determine this?

    43. Re:No brainer by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So it would be perfectly okay for me to write a suite of novels entitled :-

      Angus Pigsnot and the Philosopher's Stone Angus Pigsnot and the Chamber of Secrets Angus Pigsnot and the Prisoner of Azkaban Angus Pigsnot and the Goblet of Fire Angus Pigsnot and the Order of the Phoenix Angus Pigsnot and the Half-Blood Prince Angus Pigsnot and the Deathly Hallows

      And J.K.Rowling cannot get even the slightest bit upset ? After all, the "main" trademark is not being abused.

      Now perhaps, you see how silly your argument sounds ?

      bad example, as long as you wrote your own material (i.e your story wasn't about a teen Wizard - unless it's a parody), you'd be fine; book titles fall into copyright law and usually cannot be copyrighted. Furthermore, the Philosopher's Stone existed long before JK Rowling used it, and "chamber of secrets", "goblet of fire", "Order of the Phoenix" etc. are really quite generic concepts so can't be TMed - about the only one that isn't is the Prisoner of Azkaban, as Azkaban is a fictional place. If you don't believe me, just look at the number of Novels and films called Night Watch, for example.

      That aside, I think that this is a classic case of Trademark law being applied correctly.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    44. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      If it's an invention, patent it. But you know well it it isn't, words don't get trademark protection just because someone thought them.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    45. Re:No brainer by easterberry · · Score: 1

      Yes, you would be. And rightly so. Because by calling it an "ewok shelter" you are clearly creating a connection to the brand that you do not have a legal right to. They sell a range of products with the word "ewok" in it and they can't risk brand dillution. Not to mention it's dishonest to consumers as it is entirely reasonable that someone would mistake your products for official star wars merchandise based on the name and product description.

    46. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      Trademark dilution isn't what trademarks are traditionally about. Why does everyone keeps missing this point, go back to what this started with, it was as much of a comment on the ever-increasing scope of trademark laws as anything else...

      Besides that, it is still not a no brainer. Jedi is not a trademark used by LucasFilm explicitly or implicitly (not, part of a title of a creative works is not an automatic trademark, no, making up a word is not an automatic trademark). Yes, LucasFilm can with a high probability argue that the use of Jedi "dilutes" the Star Wars (not Jedi) trademark. No, that they almost certainly wouldn't have a case without recent, overreaching trademark expansions, nor should they.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    47. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      And you can't be bothered to link? Alive? Meaning products out there using it, or registration has not lapsed not lapsed?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    48. Re:No brainer by arose · · Score: 1

      Passing off, also doesn't happen to be about trademarks, what we were talking about...

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    49. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said "gism". He, he, he.

    50. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your purpose was satire, that would be fair use.

    51. Re:No brainer by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

      Juris Doctor or JD is the degree in America. There are a few places in the country where having a law degree is not necessary to sit for the bar exam, most states do. Once you have achieved your law degree, it is not a requirement to sit for the bar; you would have the law degree, just not be able to practice law.

      So, "Magnus Ahlberg, JD" would be your official title in the US, at least.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    52. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since several of the State Governments have recognized Jedi as a religion, Lucas may have lost any rights to the term. Not strictly related but still amusing:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

    53. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he might be an apple user and may not have any problem advertising it. *ducks*

    54. Re:No brainer by Meeni · · Score: 1

      Trademark is not copyright. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

    55. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL either, AFAIK.

      So as far as you know, you are not a longer? I would think one would remember something like that...

    56. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugg, I meant lawyer, my fail.

    57. Re:No brainer by dsavage · · Score: 1

      IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

      ISHAS

      "I still have a soul." or maybe LDWMF? (Law Degree with moral fiber?)
      Just kidding, some of my best minions are lawyers...
      -D

    58. Re:No brainer by mattbode · · Score: 1

      IANAL... couldn't there have been a better choice in letters? :)

    59. Re:No brainer by timlyg · · Score: 0

      This should promote Star Wars even more (I know it's very popular), Lucas must have gone wonka these days.

    60. Re:No brainer by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      IHALD - I Have A Law Degree

      Not to mention it makes you sound like an evil Apple product that constantly taunts a guy named Dave.

      "What are you doing, Steve?"

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
    61. Re:No brainer by random+string+of+num · · Score: 1

      except they haven't defended its common use I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon#England_and_Wales and http://www.jedichurch.org/ which would suggest Lucas arts can no-longer clam Jedi unless it were to sue those groups as well

    62. Re:No brainer by progliberty · · Score: 1

      I just watched the video about JediMind on the web, It's clearly a great product, but using that name was just absurd, and even though there is no direct copyright on the term, it is clear they should not have used it. KineticMind would have been a better name. It's just a shame they did something like that. The focus should be on how this product will help disabled people and how we can use brain signals to control devices, and not on a lawsuit over a trademark from a SciFi movie.

    63. Re:No brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCOTUS talks about the effects and mechanisms of trademark law, not the purpose. So, no contradiction to what I said.

  2. They by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldve used the force and seen that one coming.

  3. lol by drkamil · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they'll sue Jedi Mind Tricks next...

  4. LucasFilm Sues Jedi Mind Over 'Jedi' by omar.sahal · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Jedi Mind Tricks your next

    1. Re:LucasFilm Sues Jedi Mind Over 'Jedi' by drkamil · · Score: 0

      therefore it is titled "lol". stop thinking in regular time you must...

  5. LucasFilm Sues Jedi Mind Over 'Jedi' by omar.sahal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dam my cheap mod ploy is foiled drkamil

  6. Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    When you want free money, you sue people over trifles.

  7. This does not make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucasfilm is wasting their time. They are not owner of the trademark, neither they have product or company with that name.

    Next what? Another film company, having character Sonia in their film, is suing Sony for trademark infringement.

  8. the force by bakamorgan · · Score: 0

    the Jedi Mind company must have been weak minded or just no match for LucasFilm's sith lords of their legal department

  9. Settle, or settle not by Tar-Alcarin · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is no trial.

  10. Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Jedi is a word that they made up, and which they clearly use and continue to use as a trademark (irrespective of whether it's registered as such).

    Further, trademarks are use-them-or-lose-them: if they don't defend it from "Jedi Mind", then they'll lose the ability to stop OfficialJediJailbailSlutsInYourZipCode.com from appropriating it too.

    I'm sure "Jedi Mind's" products are really neat, but if so, they can survive on their own merits, with their own original name, rather than piggybacking on Lucas' creation. Trademarks are not patents, and you don't break Wheaton's Law by having and defending them.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by arose · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Where is LucasFilm's mind control software, that is named, or includes the word, Jedi to be confused with this?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Funny
      Welcome®to® the® 21st® century,® where® using® words® as® a® trademark® is® just® like® owning® a® trademark,® only® cheaper®!

      Thanks®, Rogerborg®!

      P.S. Please pick a new /. login, it looks like someone registered yours.

    3. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by IRWolfie- · · Score: 1

      I'm sure "Jedi Mind's" products are really neat, but if so, they can survive on their own merits, with their own original name, rather than piggybacking on Lucas' creation. Trademarks are not patents, and you don't break Wheaton's Law by having and defending them.

      I'm sure "RogerBorg's" comments are really neat, but if so, they can survive on their own merits, with their own original name, rather than piggybacking on Star Trek's creation.

    4. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly common-law trademarks are a lot less draconian than registered ones, because you have to prove your own use and likelihood of confusion.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No the word Jedi is not made up, it was borrowed from Japanese.

      Lucas said in an interview that he was inspired by a Jidai Geki (samurai-era soap opera) on TV during a visit to Japan.

      You have failed me for the last time!

    6. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by yyxx · · Score: 1

      If there is no reasonable possibility of confusion of a "Jedi" product from Lucas Film and the "Jedi Mind" product, there should be no trademark protection, nor a need to defend the trademark.

    7. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Good point, and if LucalFilm don't intent to pimp underage Star Wars themed hookers, then OfficialJediJailbailSlutsInYourZipCode.com doesn't infringe either.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    9. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Bitch, "Rogerborg" is a handle that I started using when I wrote a (cy)borg client for the Netrek game back when the intartubes was just Bianca Troll's Smut Shack, that one picture of Cindy Crawford in a bikini, and alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die. It's got nothing at all to do with Star Trek, except in as much as Netrek is a direct ripoff of Star Trek and... oh... fair point. I'll get my coat.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by delinear · · Score: 1

      Well unless this company is called Jidai Mind, they're certainly using the word that he modified for his own purposes. In fact, if they used the alternate spelling that seems like it would be a perfectly valid defence, the only reason to use Lucas' spelling is to associate their product with his fictional universe - even if Lucas isn't in a competing market, it's still more than likely going to fall foul of trademark dillution.

    11. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by delinear · · Score: 1

      There's also dillution to consider. Just because Disney don't currently sell Mickey Mouse smartphones, it doesn't mean they'd never intend to or that they'd be happy for a phone vendor to use the name in such a way. And it's still suggesting an endorsement of the product by Lucas which simply doesn't exist, so even though there's no product to be confused about, there is nevertheless plenty of opportunity for consumers to be confused.

    12. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the ones that were introduced well after Jedi Mind Inc. was founded, and were created solely to use as ammunition in court?

      Yeah, somehow I'm not impressed.

    13. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by gman003 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be something they actually produce, as long as a reasonable person could confuse it with properly-licensed merchandise. I, as a reasonable person, would not be too surprised to find an actual Jedi-branded "mind control" system. Actually, I think I saw one is ToysRUs once.

      Were it a "Jedi-brand Lawnmower" or "Jedi-brand Golf Club (aka Golfsaber)", it might be different, but for something Lucas could reasonably make, and which a reasonable person might think is actually related to Star Wars, yeah, this is completely fair.

    14. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      In other news, LucasFilm sues Isaac Newton for using the term "the force."

    15. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by arose · · Score: 1

      I, as a reasonable person, would not be too surprised to find an actual Jedi-branded "mind control" system. Actually, I think I saw one is ToysRUs once.

      If you are thinking of this, then you should look closer next time. Not a mention of Jedi there.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    16. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by arose · · Score: 1

      Actually, on a really close look, it does say that you can advance from PADAWAN(TM) to JEDI MASTER(TM). Jedi Mind on the other hand claims that you can play Warcraft... Totally meant to deceive you that you can become a JEDI MASTER(TM) in Warcraft.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    17. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by yyxx · · Score: 1

      What makes Disney happy isn't relevant to trademarks. Trademarks exist to make buyers happy, not corporations.

      Legally, of course, LucasFilm can get away with this nonsense; my point is that this wasn't the intent of trademark law. You are only supposed to get trademarks on actual products, not on the names of fictional characters, and aren't supposed to be able to reserve names forever.

    18. Re:Gotta give this one to LucasFilm by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      Relevant bash.org quote: http://bash.org/?246624

  11. Every Jedi by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Is now an enemy of my intellectual property!

    Do what must be done!

  12. I feel a great disturbance in the force by Tootech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am guessing this what George felt when he typed Jedi and into Google and Star Wars or George Lucas we're not the first results to come up! Then he summoned all the power of the force ( herein known as George's legal team ) ( He tried to rally the Sand People as they are always willing to fight , but they said they couldn't help due to being written out of the last 5 of George's movies ) to help battle back against those that would rebel against the good of the force ( also known as George's profit margin ) But you can't blame the guy...it has been a great cash cow and one hell of a legacy he left behind from that first movie in the sci fi genre

    1. Re:I feel a great disturbance in the force by HelioWalton · · Score: 1

      Uhh.... The sand people were in Episode 1, during the pod race. Although it is boring enough that you could have just skipped past it. So, they were only ignored in episodes 5,6,2,3...

  13. More copyright trademark patent bullshit .... by unity100 · · Score: 1, Troll

    wasnt it just yesterday that we had some crap come out of riaa ? today this. tomorrow something else. these do NOT work.

    1. Re:More copyright trademark patent bullshit .... by tsj5j · · Score: 1, Troll

      Before trolling, it helps to read the context first. Imagine if you spent years building a brand name, only to have some other company calling their products by the same name. That's what trademark law is here to protect, and it protects both indie firms and big-name firms alike. Copyright and patent systems are broken, yes, but trademarks have been comparatively clear. And the answer to the broken systems above isn't removal, it's reform.

    2. Re:More copyright trademark patent bullshit .... by IRWolfie- · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can understand Lucas wanting the name changed and enforcing it through the courts. But why the 5 million in damages (I suspect little damage) , is it really necessary to potentially put a small business that makes products targeted at the disabled out of business?

    3. Re:More copyright trademark patent bullshit .... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I'd say that the trademark system needs turning around in some respects too. There's a disproportionately large burden of proof placed on supposed infringers, in comparison to the burden of proof placed on trademark holders at trademark registration, for example.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  14. Re: There can be only one. by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Funny

    These are not the trademarks you are looking for.
    There is no Jedi.
    The Jedi is a lie.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  15. How did they alter anything? by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did they alter anything? I'm pretty sure the same basic trademark law was in effect all the way back to Episode 4.

    And it's no different from any other trademark. Just as you don't just use Apple's trademarks to sell, say, "iPod tyres" (pun on the iPod wheel, see?), or Nintendo's to sell a "Wii exercise machine" (that actually doesn't connect to a Wii), or Kraft Foods' trademark to sell something like "Cadbury chocolate flavoured condoms", or IBM's to sell something like "PowerPC dildo deluxe", you don't get to use Lucas's trademark to sell your gimmick input controller either. It's that simple.

    And Lucas even invented the word. It's not as if I trademarked Pencil and started suing pencil makers. There is pretty much no way to accidentally name your product Jedi, you know, totally without trying to piggyback on Lucas's mindshare.

    Honestly, it looks to me like textbook application of trademark law, as it was intended to work all along. You know, since the Trade Mark Registration Act of 1875 in the UK. Unless you want to tell me that Lucas invented a time machine to alter _that_ one, I seriously don't see how they altered any situation.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:How did they alter anything? by shentino · · Score: 0

      My point was that when juggernaut legal departments drag you into court it's often the case that what the law actually says isn't going to matter one iota, but that everything will depend on what it will take to stop them from grinding you down into submission.

    2. Re:How did they alter anything? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They'd already negotiated a deal (stop using the mark over the next year, and we'll say no more), which this guy has flaunted. It's hard to see much bad faith on Lucasfilm's side here.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:How did they alter anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Lucas even invented the word.

      I agree with your post but FYI - he did not invent 'jedi'. He transliterated the Japanese 'jidaigeki' - a genre of films like Hidden fortress on which Star Wars is based.

    4. Re:How did they alter anything? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      I agree with your post but FYI - he did not invent 'jedi'. He transliterated the Japanese 'jidaigeki' - a genre of films like Hidden fortress on which Star Wars is based.

      Nevertheless, my point stands that the word as it is spelled by Lucas is not a common word that you can just use without intending to piggyback on Lucas's mind-share. If he sued a company called "Jidaigeki Mind", I'd concede the point, but "Jedi Mind" is another thing.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    5. Re:How did they alter anything? by mike2R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While that may be true, it just so happens that in this case both the law and common sense agrees with the 800lb gorilla.

      This is not the abuse of power controversy you are looking for.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    6. Re:How did they alter anything? by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just as you don't just use Apple's trademarks to sell, say, "iPod tyres" (pun on the iPod wheel, see?)

      Fun fact: A German designer tried to sell an eggcup under the name of eiPott (German pronouncation is almost equal to iPod, but literally translates to egg cup) and got sued by Apple. While the judge found the name to be slightly funny, he ruled it was a trademark infringement. At first the decision was met with surprise, because trademarks in Germany are bound to the field of trade they are registered for, but then it was revealed that Apple did indeed register the mark iPod for electronical entertainment devices and for kitchen supplies.

    7. Re:How did they alter anything? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      And Lucas even invented the word.

      I agree with your post but FYI - he did not invent 'jedi'. He transliterated the Japanese 'jidaigeki' - a genre of films like Hidden fortress on which Star Wars is based.

      In other words, he took a Japanese word and reformed it into his own word, thus inventing the word 'Jedi'.

    8. Re:How did they alter anything? by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Technically, trademarks apply to specific product types only, ie: there are many companies that use the same trademarked name for completely different products. I know because I work for one of them. There are several different companies that use the same trademarked names for different products, and there isn't anything the others can do. Oh, they can SUE but technically, as long as you aren't trying to confuse the public on the ownership it is acceptable. In this instance, they ARE trying to confuse the public (in the legal sense), so it is likely infringing.

      Nissan Computers and Nissan Motors is one example. Go to www.nissan.com and read about the most fucked up court battle you can imagine on this.

      Other examples would be Chunky Soup® vs. Chunky® candy bars, SunMaster® grow lamps vs. SunMaster® tomato seeds vs. SunMaster® tanning beds. All are legally registered trademarks for their particular industries. Technically, you could have IBM® brand breakfast cereal as long as it wasn't marketed to confuse the customer to think that International Business Machines, Inc. wasn't the parent company. Obviously, this wouldn't stop them from trying to sue you, but the way that trademark law is setup, it is considered perfectly legitimate.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:How did they alter anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Honestly, it looks to me like textbook application of trademark law

      And what exactly is this "Jedi" product that Lucasfilm sells? Uh huh. Oh that's right, it isn't a product at all it's the name of these warrior/monk types in a story. Hmmmm I'd say that it is in fact quite different from a "textbook application of trademark law."

    10. Re:How did they alter anything? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      should say "as it wasn't marketed to confuse the customer to think that International Business Machines, Inc. was the parent company." Early in the AM.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    11. Re:How did they alter anything? by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Actually the AC is closer to the mark than indicated.

      Jidai means Period in Japanese, like we have period dramas over here. Any sort of period drama in Japan is Jidai, the 400 years of war before the Tokugawa Era are known as the Sengoku Jidai.

      Guys in bathrobes slashing swords at anything that moves, Jidai.

      Kurosawa movies that Lucas ripped off, Jidai.

      Silly headbands connected to funky toys, something else.

    12. Re:How did they alter anything? by radtea · · Score: 1

      And Lucas even invented the word

      For a certain value of "invented". A number of people have made this claim in this discussion, but it is pretty marginal. The Jedac (possibly spelt "Jeddack" or "Jedack", I don't recall) were Martian warriors in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom stories, ultimately based on Islamic (Suffi) mystic/warrior/assassins of the same name (whose apprentices were called "palawans" or something similar.

      Google around a bit: Episode IV is basically a tale of Islamic liberation: an independence movement represented by a small peripheral desert planet whose inhabitants apparently 'hate the Empire' use mystical powers to fight against overwhelming technological and military superiority.

      So Lucas is pulling a Disney: enclosing the historic cultural commons for his own benefit and suing anyone who dares to do him what he has done to others who didn't happen to have the awesome violence of the US government on their side.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    13. Re:How did they alter anything? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      "PowerPC dildo deluxe"

      I'll take 3, please.

    14. Re:How did they alter anything? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Google around a bit: Episode IV is basically a tale of Islamic liberation: an independence movement represented by a small peripheral desert planet whose inhabitants apparently 'hate the Empire' use mystical powers to fight against overwhelming technological and military superiority.

      So... Episode IV is Dune, retold poorly and with Jar-jar added for further teeth-gritting annoyance value? Thanks, George.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    15. Re:How did they alter anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as you don't just use ... Kraft Foods' trademark to sell something like "Cadbury chocolate flavoured condoms"

      What if you actually used Cadbury chocolate to flavor them?

    16. Re:How did they alter anything? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree. Not knowing what Jedi Mind does, I can only speculate uninformedly about some of the claims; but regardless I think trademark dillution is probably a fair one to raise.

      I do have a bit of a problem with the "breach of contract" claim, though. Sounds to me like they just got fed up and decided to throw the book at Jedi Mind. The problem is, me saying "I agree to do X" isn't a contract; there has to be an "in exchange for you doing Y". If the only thing LucasFilm offered was that they wouldn't pursue the matter further, I'm not really sure that would stand as 'consideration' for the purpose of establishing a contract.

      But then, IANAL.

    17. Re:How did they alter anything? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The Jedac (possibly spelt "Jeddack" or "Jedack", I don't recall) were Martian warriors in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom stories

      Well, no.

      Actually, on Barsoom, "jeddak" was a word more or less synonymous with "king", and had nothing at all to do with any fighting style. Or even with being a warrior - in general jeddaks were warriors, but there were exceptions.

      Note that this doesn't mean that Jedi weren't based on Sufi mystics. But it's unlikely in the extreme that they drew any inspiration from Barsoom.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:How did they alter anything? by J.+Random+Human · · Score: 1

      I do not think the word "flaunted" means what you think it means.

    19. Re:How did they alter anything? by Carik · · Score: 1

      Based on a quick search, Jedi Mind sells software that allows you to control your computer with your mind, through some sort of head-band-interface that translates a brain-scan into movement of the mouse on-screen.

      Basically, they're selling a software/hardware combination that lets you move things with your mind.

      Sounds to me like Lucas might actually have a valid case here.

    20. Re:How did they alter anything? by iprefermuffins · · Score: 1

      He was probably going for "flouted".

    21. Re:How did they alter anything? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I always though of Episode 4 as purely Arthurian. Merlin hides Arthur with an adopted family and eventually returns to reveal his true destiny. Owen even refers to Kenodbi as a wizard in the dialog. Luke even gets his Excalibur and has to assemble his knights (with Han Solo as an unlikely Lancelot and Leia as his Guinevere).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    22. Re:How did they alter anything? by arose · · Score: 1

      Common sense, because it's common sense that the common person is a moron in a hurry, who will confuse otherwise distinct products based on one word?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    23. Re:How did they alter anything? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      There are many, many reasons that a contract could be set aside. For example, if LucasFilm misrepresented their claim to owning a trademark on the word "jedi" when they did not in fact hold such a trademark, then the contract may be considered coercive. I highly doubt that the breach of contract will hold up -- and it almost definitely won't if Lucasfilm doesn't win on trademark infringement -- but lawyers always throw everything they can in the hopes that something will stick.

    24. Re:How did they alter anything? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Thank you for pressing the self destruct button.

    25. Re:How did they alter anything? by mike2R · · Score: 1

      You'd have to be a moron not to assume that a commercial product including the word Jedi, especially one in the area of mind control FFS, was not connected to Star Wars.

      You'd have to be a moron (and I speak as someone who has done something similar with a mark owned by an 800lb gorilla, so this is the voice of experience) to launch a product (in the area of mind control FFS) using the name Jedi without getting permission.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    26. Re:How did they alter anything? by arose · · Score: 1

      You'd have to be a moron not to assume that a commercial product including the word Jedi, especially one in the area of mind control FFS, was not connected to Star Wars.

      You'd be a moron to assume that it was, despite any indication, besides the word Jedi, to the contrary. The packaging doesn't look like Star Wars packaging, the logo looks nothing like anything from Star Wars. Not one Jedi controlled a computer with their mind. You'd have to ignore all evidence to the contrary and just stubbornly repeat that Jedi means Star Wars, everything else be damned. That is not something a reasonable person would do.

      You'd have to be a moron (and I speak as someone who has done something similar with a mark owned by an 800lb gorilla, so this is the voice of experience) to launch a product (in the area of mind control FFS) using the name Jedi without getting permission.

      Whether or not it's smart to challenge big companies is a separate issue. Curtailing their stomping, when appropriate, certainly is a good thing. Sadly the ever-expanding scope of trademarks probably means that this will not be a case of curtailing anything.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    27. Re:How did they alter anything? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Technically, you could have IBM® brand breakfast cereal as long as it wasn't marketed to confuse the customer to think that International Business Machines, Inc. wasn't the parent company.
       
      I am not entirely sure that you are correct. There is a special category of trademark called Famous Marks that receive additional protection over and above a regular trademark.
       

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    28. Re:How did they alter anything? by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Exceptions to that rule are made for new words. For example, a town near me has a lot of arbutus trees. So, there's Arbutus Driving Academy, Arbutus Music, Arbutus Insurance, Arbutus Electronics. Probably more. That's all fine, they're not competing. Same with Apple. Apple Autoglass, Apple Computers, Apple Music, Green Apple Grocer, all legal, and why there's no Apple iTunes, only iTunes.

      But you're wrong about IBM (probably). There's something called trademark dilution. This protects your mark from non-competing markets, too. It doesn't apply to common word trademarks like Apple, Arbutus, and so on. But it applies to made up words like Xerox, Kodak, Microsoft, and so on. If your mark was made up by you, and is distinctive, it cannot be used even in markets which you are not engaged in. This is because, if you're the only one in the world with that name, that mark identifies a "single source". Taking your made-up word and using it as a second source diminishes that, and it is considered a trademark violation most places. There is no requirement to show even the potential for confusion. See 15 U.S.C sections 1127, 1125(c).

      So, Jedi Mind could be found to be infringing, since you can argue that when you hear Jedi, you think Star Wars. However, while you don't need to register trademarks to get normal protection, you do need to register trademarks to get dilution protection, even if it IS a nationally recognizable mark. Since they have a mark on "Jedi Knight" they'd have a more difficult time of it, though a recent Second Circuit ruling found that it can still be dilution even if the mark is not identical, if it still is similar enough to makes the customer think of the actual mark. (The mark in question they ruled on was "Charbucks" coffee).

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    29. Re:How did they alter anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about iDildo ?

    30. Re:How did they alter anything? by modecx · · Score: 1

      It really aught to be the case where the trade name is limited to the area of commerce the trademark will be used in. It's more than a little unfair to say on the trademark paperwork "we're going to use this for anything and everything and also the kitchen sink", when in reality they have no intention of ever marketing kitchen supplies or indeed anything but electronic entertainment devices under that name.

      Looking at the eiPott packaging though--that's probably where they lost the case. It's funny. It's clever... But a reasonable person would conclude they are clearly trying to establish a link to the iPod brand. The link between the names eiPott and iPod is so much more tenuous on its own.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    31. Re:How did they alter anything? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      The contracts don't work that way, but even if I'm to get philosophical, then I'm still not sure what your point is.

      1. Essentially what you describe is equivalent with offering them a temporary license for up to a year instead of going to court now. Another year of using a trademark of one of the biggest franchises, that's a pretty substantial in my book. If that's nothing in your view, hell, I wish Lucas would offer me a nothing like that.

      2. Essentially the ones who offered nothing in that contract was Jedi Mind. They offered to eventually stop something they had no right to do in the first place, and which Lucas could demand to stop immediately without giving them anything in return.

      Essentially it seems to me like you expect some kind of "I'll stop cutting your tyres in exchange for..." or "I'll stop dropping bags of flaming shit at your door in exchange for...", because that's really equivalent to what Jedi Mind's side of the contract was. They just agreed to stop doing something not just wrong, but basically illegal. And that you'd expect something of value after that "in exchange for" in those. Doesn't it sound like a protection racket in that form?

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    32. Re:How did they alter anything? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with you, but I would say its an overstatement to compare this to "Wii exercise machine" and "Cadbury chocolate flavoured condoms", because there is a real chance of creating confusion in consumers' minds in those cases.

      There is little chance that anyone buying a "Jedi Mind Mouse" is likely to think he's getting bona fide Lucasfilm merchandise.

      Overall this works out well for "Jedi Mind", because now a lot more people will have heard of their product.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  16. Jidai Matsuri an japanese festival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is japanese. Roughly translated Jidai means a period in time. So, jidai matsuri is a festival where people dress up in historic costumes and parade in the streets.

  17. Hey george lucas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Fuck You ®

  18. Rephrase by AlecC · · Score: 1

    Should be "LucasFilm Jedi Mind Sues", surely?

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  19. Who does own the 'Jedi' trademark? by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    I assume the only reason why Lucas doesn't own the trademark to 'Jedi' is because someone else beat Lucas to the post & managed to trademark the word already. In which case shouldn't they be suing Lucas? Maybe Lucas had to buy a license to 'Jedi' in the 1st place

    1. Re:Who does own the 'Jedi' trademark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He 'borrowed' it from the Barsoom Books by Edgar Rice Burroughs (warriors named the Jed). And it's a simple name of course, in Christian circles often the short for Jediah etc

    2. Re:Who does own the 'Jedi' trademark? by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      WHAT?

      As posted elsewhere in this thread, Jedi is a corruption of Jidai the name for category of period samurai movies Lucas was so fond of.

      I've always heard Lucas ripped off Kurosawa, Dune (Herbert) and Lensman (Smith), but never Burroughs.

      I'd be interested to read about a Burroughs connection if you've got anything to link. Closest association I can see if Luke and Leia swinging across the bridge in the Death Star in a classic Tarzan/Jane pose, which certainly was copied by Robin Hood and many other serial heroes.

  20. Lucas is easy to deal with by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Informative

    George Lucas reputedly loves all those fan films and Lego Star Wars characters. At the same time, the Lucas companies must sue trademark infringers now and then if they want to retain their trademarks.

    But, as I learned some years ago while defusing a DMCA complaint against a SourceForge project that had some Lucas IP in it, if you *ask Lucasfilm politely* for permission to use their trademarks, they'll probably give it to you -- and probably won't want any money if you're a small-timer.

  21. After Ep 1, the gvmt should have revoked all TMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the crap that was Episode 1 was released, the government should have revoked all trademarks owned by Lucas as a penalty for pain caused to billions of fans worldwide.

  22. Correction by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    ...connection to the brand, as is the case...

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  23. Jedi Mind trick might invoke genericized trademark by MadRat · · Score: 1

    The word 'Jedi' has become a part of the American culture and LucasFilms Ltd is in danger of it becoming generic. Jedi Mind has to convince the judge that this is true and it would alter the course of battle...

  24. Re:It looks good,I have learn a recruit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for your sharing,I'm very interesting in pointingtrade anal sandals.Whatever your fashion calling is or isn't,nothing says dedication like pointingtrade anal changa pnis and pointingtrade crappy anal chapa goatse. Everyone is going pointingtrade anal shoes urine Sandals that has a positive effect on the whole body. pointingtrade anal discount urine shoes are fast becoming one of the fashion trends of the shoes.

    Yes, thanks for sharing. I liked this ad so much that I've also linked to your website, but using a different set of keywords, I hope you don't mind.

  25. from the looks of it... by Charliemopps · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    from the looks of it, the company is trying to make a reality the things lucas fantasized about. "Jedi Mind, Inc. develops software for thought-controlled technologies, allowing the user to interact with the computer and other machines through the power of the mind. The technology involves the use of a wireless headset, developed by our strategic partner, which detects brainwaves on both the conscious and non-conscious level. This revolutionary neural processing technology makes it possible for computers to interact directly with the human brain." Was there ever a more clear cut case of someone trying to use trademarks to stifle creative output and innovation?

    1. Re:from the looks of it... by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Informative

      They were perfectly happy to let him carry on his business under another name. Only one of his products ("Jedi Mouse") even has the mark on it. The burden to his business would've been negligible. How is that stifling?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  26. I can't believe Lucas didn't bury Foutch by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

    It takes something of an imbecile to not realize that Lucas would go after him after using the word Jedi. Anyone who would use the word in that context knows exactly that they are referencing the Jedi depicted in Star Wars movies, books, comic books, video games, cartoons, TV series and probably breakfast cereals. (* Silly Sith! Mind tricks are for Jedis! *) There are plenty of other words he could have used that would have been just as good or even better. And when I went to the company's site, I saw a video that depicted a computer input system that, while seemingly impressive, cannot possibly do exactly what it says it does. Tracking head movement? Yeah, I'm down with that. Tracking eye movement and blinking? Pretty damned cool. "Think left, Think right?" I'm more than a little skeptical on that notion. Sounds like the early days of voice recognition 20 years ago and we STILL don't have that right.

    I usually side with the other guy on various issues when it comes to Darth Lucas, but in this case, no... not at all. The only thing that protected Foutch from the full wrath of Darth Lucas was the fact that this is a product for the disabled. Imagine the stink over claims like "hey, George Lucas hates disabled people!"

    Foutch is a huckster and a scam artist in my opinion. Everything about what I have seen so far just spells it out to me.

    1. Re:I can't believe Lucas didn't bury Foutch by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Actually since Jedi represents a religion with at least half a million followers according to census data, there may be an exception.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:I can't believe Lucas didn't bury Foutch by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Anyone who would use the word in that context knows exactly that they are referencing the Jedi depicted in Star Wars movies, books, comic books, video games, cartoons, TV series and probably breakfast cereals.

      See, this is the mistake that everyone here makes. You are conflating copyright and trademark. It is perfectly legal for me to use a word that references a book or movie as part of the name of my business or product. As I mentioned in another post,if I were to create treehouse plans and market them as "Ewok Huts", everyone would know that I was referencing Star Wars, but I would not be infringing on any LucasFilms trademark, unless LucasFilms (or some officially authorized third party) marketed treehouse plans (or plans for building some other children's play area) under the Ewok name.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:I can't believe Lucas didn't bury Foutch by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Read about trade dilution. It doesn't have to be a competing market if, as you say "everybody would know" that you're referencing somebody else's trademark. And, Ewok is a bad choice because, unlike Jedi, they do have a mark on Ewok alone, whereas they have no mark on Jedi alone, just on Jedi Knight. LucasFlim also has a mark on the word "droid" as an abbreviation of android.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  27. That's terrible by h00manist · · Score: 4, Funny

    An idea thousands of years old, of wisdom and courage, co-opted and copyrighted by some 70's film as theirs.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:That's terrible by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      You do realise that this story (which I assume you are referring to) is a fake, don't you?

    2. Re:That's terrible by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jedi as a term is only as old as Starwars. Anyone can use the idea you describe - they just can't call it Jedi. Call it Age Old Wisdom Courage Mind or whatever (I like KoolaidLouDobbsBirdLegsNinjaMonkeyTail myself ) just not Jedi.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    3. Re:That's terrible by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      There's a Jedi's Restaurant in Chicago that existed before Starwars. So yes, they fucking can call it Jedi.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:That's terrible by cHiphead · · Score: 2, Informative

      MORE IMPORTANTLY:

      Jedi is a Hebrew origin name, meaning God knows / God protects.

      took me all of literally 10 seconds of google searching to discover this.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:That's terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are less possible combination of four letters than inhabitants in a large city. If everyone tries to come up with a random combination you will see plenty of the same.
      While LucasFilm might be in the legal right I don't think it is a good idea to allow someone to trademark a resource that scarse. If they want to trademark invented words I would suggest that they take one of 8 letters or more. At least there are more of those than there are inhabitants on this planet.

    6. Re:That's terrible by meerling · · Score: 1

      I know he can't get away with trademarking Jawa. The year before Starwars came out my uncle gave me an old Jawa motorcycle. Mine had been made in the 60s, so that totally predates Lucas, and in a commercial enterprise.

    7. Re:That's terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

    8. Re:That's terrible by sentientbeing · · Score: 2, Funny

      Was it made out of recycled robots

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    9. Re:That's terrible by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Only the horn. It isn't honking, it's screaming "We are doomed, we are doomed!" right before the crash.

    10. Re:That's terrible by crispytwo · · Score: 1

      Not quite. This is a term from ancient Egypt Dedi or Djedi - Lucas probably got Jedi from this and perhaps the idea of a wizard like person.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedi

    11. Re:That's terrible by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      Now I knew I kept this mp3 for a reason http://www.fluxradio.org/Vaders_Employee_Evaluation.mp3

      --
      All cows eat grass!
    12. Re:That's terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and your "God knows / God protects" Mind Tricks. Ptttthhhh!!!

    13. Re:That's terrible by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      10 seconds? What was your ISP running slow? :)

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
  28. And it matters... why? by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My point was that when juggernaut legal departments drag you into court it's often the case that what the law actually says isn't going to matter one iota, but that everything will depend on what it will take to stop them from grinding you down into submission.

    And that matters... why? I'd see a point in that if there was indeed a frivolous exercise in who has the most money. But when that juggernaut legal department is actually in the right, and applying the law as it was intended all along, and the little guy opposing them is in the wrong and had acted in bad faith, then why does it matter that they're a juggernaut legal department? If you're right, you're right, and that's that. Being right and rich doesn't make one less right.

    Exactly what is the fear factor here? That, god forbid, someone might do that "grinding into submission" to defend a legal right as they had it, and were using as intended?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  29. Pick a new name... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Just change the name to "Strong Force"... which should in one simple stroke protect them from litigation by picking a name generic enough to pass any reasonable muster, and at the same time tell Lucas films (and their legal dept.) to kiss their pink fuzzy butts.

    Apple went through a similar problem. After adding a new synthesizer to the machine, they placed a bunch of new sounds, and one, a chime sound ran afoul to the legal dept. because they had just resolved a standing lawsuit regarding the use of musical sound (named chime) on the computer (a use Apple Records deemed was in conflict with their business trademark) and the sound and it's name were deemed too musical. So a senior VP suggest changing the name to "Let it Beep" a clear Beetles parody that would certainly provoke Apple Records to litigate. So finally the VP said name it "Sosumi", it's Japanese and has nothing to do with music (the new name is pronounced "So Sue Me") and people tell the tale of the bad pun to this day.

    1. Re:Pick a new name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest Smoked Meat and Fishes.

  30. Let me guess what you had to ask by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Your so-called 'small timer' Sourceforge project is called Death Star?

    Exactly how *long* before 1-point-oh, huh buddy? Or should I call you Darth Vader now?

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:Let me guess what you had to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* I weep when I think of days long past when trolling was interesting and involved more than a second-grade mentality...

    2. Re:Let me guess what you had to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still is occasionally. Something I love about this site are the 'trolls' that are multi-page diatrebes about black people, the president, etc. It's actually really funny. :D

  31. Re: There can be only one. by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

    Move along, these are not the ones we are looking for.

    --
    This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
  32. Well doggies! by paiute · · Score: 1

    Next, the Lucas Rebel Attorney Alliance turns their attention to Uncle Jed and sues the estate of Paul Henning.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  33. irrelevant by unity100 · · Score: 1

    EVERYtime some bullshit comes up like this, someone comes up with 'context'. everytime, context context context. its time to realize that its not the 'context' but, it is the system, if it happens THAT much and that often.

    1. Re:irrelevant by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      EVERYtime some bullshit comes up like this, someone comes up with 'context'

      That's because EVERYtime this comes up, someone tries to actually make people think instead of bleating out some knee-jerk stupidity.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  34. Registered trademarks vs. common law trademarks by fair+use · · Score: 3, Informative

    The original post confuses trademark law.

    Under common law, all you have to do get trademark rights is to use a particular mark, although whether you can actually prevent any one else from using the mark depends on a lot of factors, e.g., your mark should be distinctive and you should be the first to use it for a particular type of product.

    In addition to any common law rights, you can also get a federal trademark registration, which gives you the right to use the circle R symbol (note that it is against the law to use the circle R symbol unless you have a federal registration). Having a federal registration gives you some advantages over a common law trademark: (1) you get a presumption that you use the mark nationwide (as opposed to a particular geographic region), and (2) you can sue in federal court if someone infringes your trademark.

    Even if you have a federal registration, you only have rights to a mark if you actually use it. If you get a federal registration on a mark, but stop using it, then that mark becomes available for someone else to use.

    Trademark law is very different from patent/copyright law and serves a much clearer purpose -- people need to know the real source of the products they buy.

  35. Re:Jedi Mind trick might invoke genericized tradem by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    The word 'Jedi' has become a part of the American culture and LucasFilms Ltd is in danger of it becoming generic. Jedi Mind has to convince the judge that this is true and it would alter the course of battle...

    It would be tough to find anyone to whom the word "Jedi" evokes a generic "monk-like guy", rather than Luke Skywalker, Yoda, or that pissant who hates sand.

  36. Jedi Mind Trick by big+dumb+dog · · Score: 1

    ...these are not the trademarks you are looking for

    --
    "Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
  37. what about Jedi Mind Tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the underground Hip-Hop group...

    they continue to tour and release albums under this name, from 1996 to present.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Mind_Tricks

    wonder how that's ok?

  38. "Jedi Mind Trick" is a film quote NOT a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia states:

    A trademark or trade mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.

    LucasFilm does not use the term 'Jedi Mind' to "identify products or services" that they own. The term is simply part of the script in the movie. Since they do not market any products with the term "Jedi Mind", they do not have any common law trademark in the matter. You idiots like to confuse the 'logic' of copyright law with trademark law. Trademarks are for business purposes only NOT works of art.

  39. Re:Jedi Mind trick might invoke genericized tradem by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    What about the people who consider their religion to be "Jedi"? A significant number of those people are serious. I think that there is a valid argument to be made that Jedi has become generic, although I'm not sure that the argument is strong enough to carry the day.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  40. Re:Jedi Mind trick might invoke genericized tradem by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    What about the people who consider their religion to be "Jedi"? A significant number of those people are serious.

    Yes, and what are they referencing? Is it a religion based around "the Force", with a light and dark side that stretches through the universe and ties everything together? And furthermore, if you asked any of them to name one example of a "Jedi", would they say "Luke Skywalker" or "Yoda"?

    Yeah. Still not generic. For a mark to become generic, it must have no association with the manufacturer.

  41. Droid by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    I agree - it's a commercial usage, it's using the word in a similar context, and it's a word (AFAIK) solely created by LucasFilm.

    For other examples of LucasFilm trademarks, I think the trademark over "Droid" is far more dubious, given that this is an obvious shortening of an existing English word, and although English words can be trademarked, they seem to try to enforce this even on things nothing to do with Star Wars (e.g., I believe that Motorola needed to license the trademark for their Droid, even though the name is clearly an obvious shortening of the Android operating system it runs, and nothing to do with Star Wars). The idea that a company can own - in any context - words in our language that are obvious derivations of existing words seems mad. (Just think, in years to come when perhaps robotics becomes commonplace, we won't be allowed to call them droids without infringing...)

    1. Re:Droid by arose · · Score: 1

      The idea that a company can own - in any context - words in our language that are obvious derivations of existing words seems mad. (Just think, in years to come when perhaps robotics becomes commonplace, we won't be allowed to call them droids without infringing...)

      Worse! Imagine if in years to come computer mind control, that has nothing to do with the Force, telekinesis or telepathy... Wait, never mind. Clearly these are so different.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  42. Flying douche... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does every external link from slashdot HAVE to be to wikipedia?

    1. Re:Flying douche... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does every external link from slashdot HAVE to be to wikipedia?

      Nope.
      Try this one.
      http://goat.cc/

    2. Re:Flying douche... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      *facepalm*

      can't believe I fell for that again

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  43. What Lucas wants... by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

    Lucas just wants to "wet his beak."*

    *"Wet his beak"(TM) is a trademark of Francis Ford Coppola, all rights reserved.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  44. Somewhat off-topic... by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

    But I just remembered that I filled out a Canadian census card a few years ago just to register my religion as Jedi.

    1. Re:Somewhat off-topic... by amentajo · · Score: 1

      You're not selling a product.

  45. hard to find any names that aren't taken by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    No one has raised this point yet. There are only so many 4 letter words: 26^4 = 456976. English has about 1 million words. We've already seen trouble over this shortage, and have had to adopt the expedient that unrelated businesses may use the same names and terms, under the notion that is unlikely to cause confusion. Look at the Firefox browser, going through 2 name changes. Phoenix is claimed for BIOS, Firebird is claimed for a database. All these were in the IT field, which was close enough that the browser people decided to change names rather than fight. Who knows, there could be Firefox deodorant. What I hear of Trademark law sounds reasonable, except for this technical problem. Some day we'll have to solve this problem properly if the number of trademarks continues to increase. Maybe add a numbering system. Jedi TM1 can be a different trademark from Jedi TM2.

    So, yes, it can be stifling. Unintentional and innocent, but just as stifling.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:hard to find any names that aren't taken by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      There are only so many 4 letter words: 26^4 = 456976.

      True.

      Now demonstrate that your product is stifled if it cannot use a four letter name.

      Or demonstrate that of the 217,180,147,158 possibilities for names of 8 characters or less, being denied access to approximately 3.9 million (registered trademarks, including dead registrations, so this is a very conservative number) is stifiling.

      Heck, there are only 676 possibilities for two letter trademarks, so certainly you won't object if I sell you "GM" automotive parts that I've imported from some knock-off factory in Shenzhen. Apparently I can use Ford too, since that's a four letter name.

    2. Re:hard to find any names that aren't taken by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      If your last name is Ford, then, yes you can use it. That's another expedient we've adopted. Guarantees that we all have at least one name we can use, greatly helping to alleviate the stifling. This tradition can even overcome last names with negative associations.

      I most certainly would object to being sold "GM" parts I was given to understand were branded by General Motors, but in fact were not.

      I'm saying we will need to allow multiple use of short names in a way that does not lead to confusion, and does not give openings for counterfeiters to lie. I don't mind knock offs as long as I know they are knock offs. Sometimes, the copies are better than the originals. But I do mind knock offs masquerading as originals.

      Short words and names are too valuable to be permanently tied to one organization. Monarchies have a centuries old solution to this problem: numbering. There is no confusion between George III and George VI thanks to numbering. A similar solution may work for trademarks.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    3. Re:hard to find any names that aren't taken by shermo · · Score: 1

      I went to a sushi bar called 'Yoshi'. Unfortunately there was no green dinosaur in sight :(

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  46. Got it! by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)

    HWLD: Human With Law Degree? You could pronounce it like "hooled".

    Oh, come on lawyers, I was just kidding. Please don't sue me. Please?

    -=Steve=-

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  47. These are not . . . by spamking · · Score: 1

    These are not the Jedis you are looking for.

  48. It's a trick! by ppanon · · Score: 1

    Mixed references.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  49. What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "un on the iPod wheel, see?"

    No, I don't. Even 6 years ago it was a stretch, and only a few models even have a wheel. Your example is awful. I know you were going for a car analogy, but this is like a mess that a dog left. Yuck.

  50. Lucas can fuck off by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 1

    Used to be an IP Paralegal.

    Unless Lucas has registered "Jedi" as a trademark and used it, Lucas hasn't a leg to stand on other than they have money and can be an expensive nuisance. Just because you invented a word in a book or movie doesn't mean it is your trademark (unless you're using it AS a trademark, or it is the title of your book or movie).

    If Lucas Arts had a game called "Jedi Mind", then they have a case because it is software. Otherwise, they got nuthin'.

    If they have registered it as a trademark, then here's your test for infringement:

    1. Similarity of the conflicting marks;
    2. Relatedness or proximity of the two companies;
    3. Strength of the senior users mark;
    4. Marketing channels used;
    5. Degree of care likely to be used by purchasers in selecting the goods;
    6. The "second comers" intent in selecting its mark;
    7. Evidence of actual confusion;
    8. Likelihood of expansion in product lines

    And that's all finally decided by a judge and jury.

    --
    "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
    1. Re:Lucas can fuck off by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      or it is the title of your book or movie

      Like, say, in "The Return of the Jedi?"

  51. Your view of trademarks is problematic by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    Bascially what you are saying amounts to this - that all character names, place names and organization names in a work, be it a book or a movie, automatically qualify as trademarks.

    This is obviously NOT the intention of trademarks. It would be especially harmful to society because trademarks, unlike copyrights, do NOT expire.

    As example - if this were true, nobody would be eaten by a grue except in the original game, no goblins, orcs or trolls would be allowed because these obviously were trademarked in an earlier work.

    I think Lucas arts is into this with their ass forwards - if they did not bother to trademark "Jedi" then it isn't a trademark.

    And think of the poor members of the church of jediism ;-)

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  52. Re:Jedi Mind trick might invoke genericized tradem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And where is Jedi Mind making that connection? They are not making the connection. So basically you are implying a connection that does not exist which is exactly why LucasFilm Ltd may get their asses handed to them in court this time around.

  53. i suggest change to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeudi Minds and c'est fini.

  54. They didn't trade mark 'Jedi'? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    haha, sucks to be them. They did nothing to protect their IP. IMO they should loose.
    \

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  55. besides LucasLawers=JediMindTrick, free publicity? by lpq · · Score: 1

    Besides the fact that I consider calling something a Jedi mind trick to be akin to calling something slight-of-hand, (those with stronger minds wouldn't be so easily fooled), has anyone considered that the lawsuit might be someone's way of getting free publicity for products I've never heard of?

  56. Ah yes but when Pope Lovescocks waves his hand... by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    In a Jedi like manner..... Can old Lard Arse Lucas sue him for "trademark infringement of the Jedi Mind Control Wave"?

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  57. I know who owns the Jedi trademark! by brinkie · · Score: 1

    The Force has been serving Dutch Volkswagen owners since 1964:

    Jedi
    Street view

    I wonder if they really have a lift, or just use The Force when they have to work underneath a car.

    --
    Omnis basim vester nobis compete sunt.
  58. The only problem is... by blue-slonopotam · · Score: 1

    Jedi Mind Inc is a SCAM. whois jedimindinc.com google blackhawkfinancial, brent fouch, etc. Not to mention priors. http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?mode=read&id=380401

  59. Re: There can be only one. by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

    These are not the trademarks you are looking for.
    There is no Jedi.
    The Jedi is a lie.

    Great, now I have a bizarre mental image of Keanu Reeves holding Obi-Wan in one hand and bending him in half. My morning is starting off with too much Weird.

    --
    ad astra per alia porci