John McAfee Sues Intel To Use His Own Name (bloomberg.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo quotes a report from Bloomberg: John McAfee, the creator of the eponymous antivirus computer software system, sued Intel Corp. for the right to use his name in new ventures after the chip maker bought his former company. Intel bought McAfee in 2010 and eventually renamed it "Intel Security." McAfee has since joined digital gaming company MGT Capital Investments Inc. as chairman and chief executive, with plans to rename the company "John McAfee Global Technologies Inc."

McAfee says Intel warned him that any use of his name will infringe on the company's trademarks that it acquired with the McAfee deal in 2010, according to his complaint filed Friday in Manhattan federal court.
Intel hopes to sell their antivirus unit for $3 billion, according to the article -- after acquiring it in 2011 for $7.7 billion.

Comments

Should sue them for what Intel did to his name

[geek]

Intel has fucked that division sideways. I just had a meeting with the intel security team, including their CTO and they are totally out of ideas and out of their depths. They have no vision for how to compete with the new companies nipping at their heels and are at least 5 years away from a viable product for the enterprise that isn't signature based.

Anyone that buys McAfee for 3.3 billion is out of their freaking minds.

He might want to rethink this

[93 Escort Wagon]

Given what he's been doing over the past couple of decades, and given for what he was in the news a few years ago - a lot of people hear "John McAfee" and think of something other than software.

Re:He can buy it back ...

[perpenso]

But the thing is he didn't have to change his name when he sold the brand.

A trademark is specific to a particular category, the exclusivity only applies to the specifically stated category. For example he is free to start McAfee Pharmaceuticals Inc but not McAfee Software Development Inc. Similarly names are outside of the stated category.

Should we only ever get one chance to use our real names as a brand?

You are not limited to one chance unless you voluntarily SELL a brand based on your name, and again its category specific. He could have sold the technology, the software/data/patents/etc, while retaining the company/brand name. But he would have received less money. He CHOSE to go for a bigger payday by letting the name/brand go.

Good luck with that.

[fahrbot-bot]

This happened with Walter S. Taylor and his (now) Bully Hill Vineyard. His grandfather started the Taylor Wine Company in New York. Walter joined the company as Exec VP and was disturbed by various legal practices (below):

Walter became growingly concerned with the direction Taylor was taking under the protection of New York law—protection that let wineries deceptively make their wine under a veil of secrecy. Wineries could add dozens of chemicals, concentrates, water, and “foreign” juice to their wines without informing the consumer on the label. Deep in the middle of the night, under a veil of secrecy, wineries would receive deliveries of juice from California in “Tank Cars” to add to their wines. They could even still call their bottle of wine a New York wine!

He spoke out, was eventually fired and started Bully Hill Vineyards. In 1977, Taylor Wine was bought out by Coca-Cola and they filed an injunction preventing Walter from using the name "Taylor" on any of his products or making any implications that he / Bully Hill was ever associated with Taylor Wine.

When I visited the winery in the 1980s, all the labels said "Walter S. [blacked out]" and featured a picture of the company mascot - a goat. Underneath it said, "They got my name, but they didn't get my goat."