Slashdot Mirror
IDG and 'Trademark Dilution' For Dummies
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Plump
X-Sender: plumpy@magic.hurrah.com
To: plug@Northwest.com
Subject: [PLUG] PLUG: Cease and Desist (this means you David Welton)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-plug@Northwest.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: plug@Northwest.com
Heh. On 10/23/1998 David Welton made a post with the subject "SMART_HOST for dummies". Apparently IDG Books didn't like that so much. They found
the post in the PLUG archives and emailed the owner of skylab.org (a fictional character named Joe Dietz) telling him to remove the page.
Anyone got advice about what I should do? Ignore it? Reply asserting
that I'm not responsible for the content (am I?). Or...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Allen Plump | Snorks + Kr0n =3D yip yip yip! |
plumpy@skylab.org
"Salsa jazz music reminds me of the time my grandpa ate his left ear."
--Joe Dietz
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:26:11 -0500
From: Isabelle Drewelow
To: dietz@SKYLAB.ORG
Subject: your web site
October 28, 1999
Joe Dietz dietz@SKYLAB.ORG
BY E-MAIL
Re: Smart_Host for Dummies
Dear Mr. Dietz,
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. ("IDG Books") is the publisher of the well-known and well-regarded "...FOR DUMMIES" series of reference books and products.
It has come to my attention that you are using the subtitle "Smart_Host for Dummies" in a chat room on your Web site at: [link ] While we wish you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
As you probably know, IDG Books publishes and distributes globally a line of reference books known as the "...FOR DUMMIES" series. This series has been in existence since 1991 and has been translated into 38 languages. In addition, there are many other successful FOR DUMMIES products including calendars, audio books, musical compact discs, toys, games, and clothing.
IDG Books has made a substantial investment in promoting the identification of this trademark to its distributors and customers, and currently has registrations in many countries.
Because of the significant efforts that IDG Books has undertaken to promote and protect its trademarks, and because of the potential for confusion and/or dilution, we trust that you can appreciate our concerns. For your information, dilution is a relatively new area of law which requires the owner of a trademark to protect it against "erosion" and/or dilution. Some famous examples of trademark dilution are Kleenex tissues, Scotch Tape, Xeroxing and Aspirin, as these marks were not protected by their respective owners and, today have become almost generic terms. At IDG Books, our goal is to prevent such "generalization" from happening to our trademarks.
Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably. Accordingly, we request that you change "Smart_Host for Dummies" to a non-infringing title and provide IDG Books with written assurances that you will refrain from using its trademarks in the future. We look forward to hearing from you by November 10th , 1999.
Very truly yours,
Isabelle Drewelow
Trademark Coordinator
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
(Note: It is really a mailing list, and not a chat room, but the fact that they think it is a chat room scares me even more)
Seems to me that the same arguements apply here. If he were to modify the archive, he would give up content nuetrality. Seems like a good reason not to. Worst case would seem to be that he might eventually be ordered by a court to change the archive, but then he could still claim content nuetrality, and a court would seem to be hard pressed to apply any fines when he points out the bind and claims good will.
I've refused to buy any "For Dummies" or "For Idiots" or "For Microcephalics" or whatever for a long time. My theory is that you either need a much weaker or a much stronger self image than I have to purchase one, though I imagine they make excellent gifts for that hard-to-please in-law.
-------snip--------
That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that someone publish a book entitled "Sendmail for Dummies".
-------snip--------
Here's my version:
-------snip--------
That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that someone, either IDG or another publisher, publish a "...for Dummies" style book. As you know, your name recognition is exceptional, thanks to the great series of books that you have published.
-------snip--------
RP
Early in my first year I gained the rights to such phonetical noises as ma-ma and "P-I-E pie". Later in my development I began to use such parts of speech as verbs and nouns. Recognizing these as keys to profit, I trademarked those as well as any pattern matching [a-zA-Z0-9]* . Fear not, I am not attempting to trademark the entire English language and character set, that would mean hampering my communications with you.
I cheerfully relinquish the trademark rights to
- Pronouns
- The Articles
- The verbs is, as, are, were, been, and does
- Conjunctions
- The prepositions of and for
- Individuals may use their birthnames without penalty
I believe that the vocabulary that I have listed is sufficient for most daily communication.Me is and are of and with I but for you,
John F. Hurst
I'm glad that maddog's book/pamphlet was free, I don't think I'll be using cash with these guys.
I suggest a response along the following lines:
Dear Ms. Drewelow,
Thank you for your letter of October 28. While we understand that it is your job to defend your trademark, we feel that you are asserting an overly broad right to a common phrase in the English language that was in wide use before IDG ever existed as a corporate entity. We do not choose to use the phrase "XXX for dummies" because IDG made it popular; it was a popular phrase before IDG existed as a corporate entity. For this reason, your task of preventing the dilution of the term is probably hopeless; the term is quite diluted already since so many people use it without thinking of IDG books in any way.
While the courts have limited commercial speech, we are not engaging in for-profit activity here and freedom of speech is an important value to us. As private individuals we do not believe that you, or the Congress, has the power to stop us from using the phrase "for dummies" however we choose. We therefore respectfully decline your request.
We assure you that we will not compete with IDG by publishing a book with "... For Dummies" in the title, and we will not in any way imitate the "look and feel" of your "For Dummies" book series.
If you're going to send that, then I suggest reading "Civil Actions for Dummies"... several times... all six thousand volumes.
In case you haven't noticed, these people are attorneys. They are paid hundreds of dollars an hour by corporations like IDG just to stomp on people like you. Just writing that letter probably cost IDG a cool $300. If you get pissy with them, then they will drop the hammer on you.
They honestly don't give a shit if you're polite to them or not. What they care about is protecting and preserving the intellectual-property rights of their client, IDG. Snippiness is completely irrelevant to them.
If you want to avoid a long, prolonged flamewar with a lawyer -- and when lawyers flame, they do it in ways that your pocketbook will feel -- then I suggest writing back a polite, professional letter.
This is not Usenet, and you do not get style points for creative flamage.
(The page linked to here is a description of an e-mail exchange with IDG's lawyers; at the bottom of that page is a link to the "offending" site.)
They are demanding that a comment with the title "SmartHost for dummies" be stripped from the archives of a mailing list. Do you think that the 1st Amendment has been repealed?
Now, if someone produced a book with a yellow cover called "SmartHost for Dummies", yes, that would be a trademark violation.
I've delt with large coorporations before. And I personally know how tough they can be. I will say that IDG may just be looking out for themselves and don't want to bother with this, but if there is a large up roar, then they may get defensive.
Its not your neck on the line, it's "Plumpy"'s. And posting as a AC doesn't show that you are willing to stick your neck out.
Yes, I thought it was a witty letter, but I also believe that you should fight for your rights, and not cross the line to being on the offensive.
I'm just sticking out for plumpy.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
If you respond to them at all, just say "There is no misuse of your trademark on my site," and nothing else. If you carefully explain why they are wrong, you give them something to attack, which will put you in a weaker legal position if it comes to that (which it shouldn't anyway).
My personal rule is to ignore all threatening correspondance that does not come from actual lawyers ("Trademark Coordinator" bitches don't count).
The question seems to be whether use of a "trademarked phrase" in conversation can be considered trademark infringement. I can't see how it can be (for one thing because it seems utterly stupid). Maybe they're trying to consider chat room messages as "published media" (and yes I know it's not a chat room, but that's what they think).
Plenty of comapnies rue the day when they lose such important brand identification.
Yeah, but they should be happy, too. It gives them incredible brand recognition. I think that every company's dream should be losing their trademark from dilution.
--
--
"In Cyberspace, no one can hear you be sarcastic"
He needs to be polite. Not to kiss their heinies.
Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be: "That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that IDG publish a '...for Dummies' book on the topic of Sendmail. This was not meant to dilute your trademark, rather it was a specific request for a book in your series."
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
(From "Here's the law in question" thread below)
Hi, mostly a good reply, but remember you are talking to lawyers here and to paraphrase MIB "No m'am the legal profession do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of"
For the most part their initial letter seems to be a polite relatively non-threatening (aside from the fact that it came from a legal firm) request that you correct an apparent potential dilution of their highly valuable copyright.
They have notably failed to mention any proposed legal action they may take against you and their closing paragraph does indicate a wish to resolve the matter amicably "Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably."
I would suggest that you alter the paragraph:
to read as follows: This has the double effect of acknowleging IDG as the holders of the TM and removing a potentially offensive reference to their lawyers.It would probably also be worthwhile to include an explanation of the nature of the archives and pointing out A) That you have no control of the contents of the archive and B) that the controversial material is part of a publicly archived message (and as such is protected under the 1st amendment) and is not listed in any way as a subject of the site itself.
Stating in closing that you are happy to enter into discussions with them regarding this problem would not only be polite but also demonstrate that you are also willing to find an amicable solution to the problem.
This strikes me as somewhat condescending, but that's just me The fact that they are fictional entities does not protect the real person behind them from legal action.Silver
Why do you feel the need to respond to them so immaturely? What they sent to you seemed polite in every way. Honest mistakes happen all the time; most mature adults have learned to repond to them graciously rather than in a childishly antagonistic way. I'd suggest politely pointing out that they were mistaken in that it was just a message title (as well as a request for such a book to be published) and not a chat room. Do you really expect to gain sympathy from anyone above the age of 12 by displaying such juvenility?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Comments? Sure.
I'm on the same mailing list. (Look for ``llywrch" in the records, & you'll find my real name. FWIW.) I just read about this episode at lunch. A few hours later, it's a hot topic on Slashdot.
Observation one: the wheels of justice may move slow, but the Internet's are turbocharged. All the more reason to think before acting.
Observation two: IDG has a weakness or two of their own. If a couple of people are exchanging email on a mail list about needing a book like ``Sendmail for Dummies" or ``SNMP for Dummies", & IDG goes after them for perceived Copyright Infringement, how likely are they going to get support for their next title from the Internet community?
(Have you heard about the abusive interview with Pete Rose? Did you also hear how the entire NY Yankee's team decided they would refuse all interviews with the journalist responsible?)
Observation three: Joe Dietz does not exist? Shoot. I had always thought he was one of the Usenet Freedom Knights on n.a.n.[eu]. Or maybe he *is*, & is the most respected one of that ilk.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Actually, Toys "R" Us (tm) does vigorously and successfully, yet at the same time sanely, defend their trademark of the 'x R Us' name - a formula which I believe they have a great deal more right to than the 'x for Dummies' formula. TRU, however, only goes after people selling product under names falling under that formula. That is to say - people who are honestly infringing on their trademark. Weird, huh?
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Yes, but they are attempting to USE the government to suppress someone's freedom of speech.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing
goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
1125(c)4(B)... They haven't got a leg to stand on.
I think what happened must be that this Isabelle Drewelow, who sent the cease and desist order, didn't understand the nature and intent of the web page she had found by typing "for dummies" in the AltaVista search field. She must have though there was genuine trademark infringement going on.
The best course of action would be to respond calmly, politely and informatively (even dropping the sarcasm). Not everyone who doesn't grok the 'net deserves our ridicule. (Whether such people should be cruising it in search of trademark violations is another matter.)
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
#include
...For Dummies registered trademarks of IDG Books. Bristol-Meyers is a trademark of Bristol-Meyers-Squibb. Xerox is registered trademark of Xerox Corporation. Sendmail is a trademark of Sendmail, Inc. and/or Eric Allman. Surak is a trademark of Paramount Pictures. Please don't sue me, I'm very poor. :)
For the most part I agree with your statement. However, while, as previously stated I'm not a lawyer, I'd have to say that common carrier status is really, really tough here because we are talking about a mailing list. AOL lost this battle at least once already.
Although there is recourse. He could simply claim fair use, which is protected to some extent under trademark laws. For example, I could write a review in magazine about a Corvette, or even compare, say a Dodge Viper to a Corvette, and neither DaimlerChrysler nor General Motors could sue me for trademark infringement because I was reviewing their respective products. Even if I stated that I thought that GM should produce say a "Corvette Lite" which would be low-end version of the Corvette to combat the Mustang, for instance would not be infringement for the same reason. This line of reasoning could be easily extended into saying that the author of the message thought that IDG should produce a "Sendmail for Dummies (R)" is the same thing.
You do have to see it from their point of view, though. Xerox (R) has had the same problem for years because people say "why don't you xerox a copy of that for me." When things become common usage, the company can lose their trademark rights. The message from IDG mentions Aspirin. Aspirin used to be a trademark of (I think) Bristol-Meyers but they lost that because people began referring to any headache pills as aspirin. Now anyone and their mother can all their product aspirin.
AOL is a trademark of America Online, Inc. Dodge, Viper and DaimlerChrysler are trademarks or registered trademarks of DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Corvette, GM and General Motors are trademarks or registered trademarks of General Motors Corp. Mustang is a trademark for Ford Motor Company. IDG and
My journal has hot
Who the hell moderated this up? Did anyone of you actually read the article/letter? It may well be that if IDG creates a pattern of failure to defend their trademark that they may loose the right to, HOWEVER, as there is no concievable way that this example constitues infringement this post is just wrong. Unfortunatly I've already posted to this thread so I cant moderate it down, but you can bet if I ever see it in my meta-moderation menu it's getting an UNFAIR.
15 U.S.C. s 1125(c) governing dilution provides at subsection (4)(B): "The following shall not be actionable under this section: . . . Noncommercial use of a mark." End of discussion.
First off, I just want to say that this is the most reasonable lawyer-letter I have ever seen. No threats. No references to "treble damages."
...
t ters-9904.html
They explained the issue in non-threatening, plain english, and requested -- not demanded -- that the site be changed.
Such civil behavior should be commended! Especially in this day and age.
What is at issue here is the 1996 Federal Trademark Anti-Dilution Law -- the sort of law that makes lawyers' eyes dance with visions of long trials and big paychecks. It's a very vague law.
This law provides special protection to "famous" trademarks -- and the definition of "famous" is left to be battled over in court.
In summary, you are perfectly free to start a company to manufacture "Apple Golf Balls" without infringing on Apple Computer's trademark, because, basically, Apple's holds the trademark for the word "apple" in computer products/services, but they never manufactured golf balls. That's why "Clue Computing" can coexist with Hasbro's "Clue" game. Clue Computing trades in computer products/services, while Hasbro trades in board games. Trademark ordinarily refers to the combination of a mark, and a specific trade.
Under the new law, this does not apply to "famous" trademarks. So, you could not start marketing "Kodak Golf Balls", because the court would rule that since the trademark "Kodak" is so deeply associated with the Kodak film company, the word "Kodak" on other products, such as golf balls, would create market confusion. If you saw "Kodak Golf Balls" in a store, you would probably think, "When did Kodak start manufacturing golf balls?"
What IDG is claiming is that their "... for dummies" trademark is now so famous that anything in the world with "... for dummies" will cause market confusion with their line of books, etc.
Whether this is true or not would be a matter for the courts to decide. However
One provision of the 1996 law states that in order for use of a famous trademark to be dilutive, the defendant must make commercial use of the mark. I don't think that IDG would be able to prove this, because I don't think that it happened.
They were under the mistaken impression that the "... for dummies" title was the name of a chat room. If this was the case, then they MIGHT have a case, if they could show that the person who created the chat room was attempting to draw in readers, by using the public association between the "... for dummies" trademark with the idea of a tutorial book aimed at beginners, and was providing a tutorial work on Sendmail.
However, this was a simple message in a message thread, where the author idly wishes for a "Sendmail for dummies" book, that does not exist. There's no commercial use of the mark. The author of the article wasn't using the mark to draw in readers, or to sell products.
So I think that IDG isn't justified in pursuing the matter.
Reference:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/ma
Section 1125(c)4:
The following shall not be actionable under this section:
...(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
I guess now is as good a time as any to mention my ironically titled manuscript, hitting the shelves at a store near you next week:
:)
"The complete idiot's guide to copywright law for dummies in a nutshell in 21 days and 24 hours."
Let the cease & desist orders begin
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Daniel.
I am against IP laws, but not trademark laws.
I am *completely* against mis-use of the trademark laws, and a lawyer who so blatantly misrepresents them should be disbarred. Trademark law is available on-line, so even non-lawyers like us can discover relevant sections at this site.
Check out Sect 1125, in particular the very end:
(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative
commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing
goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
This qualifies under both (B) and (C) as *non*-actionable.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
This is exactly the sort of zero-discretion legislation that's making things so much fun in the workplace and school. "Hi, we're human, we can think, but would prefer not!"
And, besides, you have to admit that this is a very polite message. "We understand why you're doing this, but we can't let you do this, and here's the reasons why. Can we be amicable about this?" (Well, amicable for lawyers, anyways.)
I'm waiting for their upcoming "...for Fucking Morons" series.
Moderate me down. I'm off-topic and using foul-language.
Excuse me.... But wouldn't it be smart to ENCOURAGE people to talk about your product / line of books?
Perha[ps they haven't read 'Public Relations for Dummies' ?
Not really. Have you noticed that lots of frisbees don't say "Frisbee" on them? This is because Frisbee is a registered trademark. Yet people call all flying discs frisbees (you'll notice that the phrase "flying discs" sounds stupid, which just proves my point), and the name Frisbee is no longer capable of causing brand association.
Any effort Wham-O put into marketing the Frisbee is lost. Now they probably don't sell many, since so many other companies sell competing products and nobody differentiates them based on brand.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
You'll get sued!
Do you know how many times each of you have infringed this trademark?
Resist the urge, don't say it! They'll take your house, your car, and your pigs!
This is a discussion forum! Aaaahhhhhhh!
:) Silly lawyers...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The point being that the author of the post was referring to IDG`s `..for dummies` series when he wrote it. So IDG don`t really have anything to complain about, as they would have realised if they`d actually read the article. This is probably some generic mail that gets spewed out every time their search engine gets a hit on "for dummies".
This is true -- they risk the dilution and loss of their trademark. This says more about their decision to trademark WORDS IN THE DICTIONARY than about anyone's alleged legal misdeeds. 15 U.S.C. s 1125(c) governing dilution provides at subsection (4)(B): "The following shall not be actionable under this section: . . . Noncommercial use of a mark."
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Here is what I am probably going to reply with.
Any comments on that?
That's what we need!
jf
Someone over at IDG needs to tighten up the reigns on its legal team a bit.
When pinheaded lawyers simply cruise the web for trademarks looking for people to sue its a good bet the president of the company needs to buy "Managing for Dummies".
When there aren't checks and bounds on emails such as this sent out of a company the size of IDG its a good bet that someone in the company needs to read "Setting Standard Operating Procedures for Dummies".
When IDG fails to appologize for the obvious faux pax its a good bet thier public relations department needs to read "Eating crow for Dummies".
And in case my spelling is at its usual worst, you can bet our bottom dollar that I haven't read "Spelling for Dummies".
http://windows.scares.us
I do see their point... but what they're trying to do is restrict the use of '...for dummies' in conversation, i.e. in common speech. The use of '...for dummies' in the mailing list does not smack of deliberate infringement - simply of using the phrase to indicate the level at which the content is aimed.
In other words, '...for dummies' has become incorporated into our language to some extent. It's pointless to try to combat that by preventing people using it as a generic term in their everyday lives.
I could suggest that general use of the term amounts to free advertising, but I'm sure IDG regards trademark erosion as too great a threat to consider that an advantage.
SA.
Fair Use and Parody both apply to copyrights, not trademarks.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Take a look at the subject of this news story.
'IDG and 'Trademark Dilution' For Dummies'. And this is alot more like a chat room than the mailing list.
Let's see if I get a similar letter from IDG now. I wonder if IDG knows the difference between a web discussion forum and a 'chat room'. While one can understand legitimate defense of trademarks, no rational person who saw a message on a mailing list like that would think that the author was intending to infringe upon IDG's trademark in this case. Unfortunately this type of taking things too far seems to happen too often. The logical conclusion is either that there are a lot of irrational people out there or that people just plain don't get it.
I say we all post a BUNCH of news to a bunch of newsgroups with "for dummies" in the title and see what they do to Deja.com ... they do the exact same thing as this mailing list archive.
This is the type of stupidity that gets me to "just say no" to someone. I will watch, but if this true, IDG will get a package from me containing the books of theirs that I already own.
I think organizing an action like this would be very effective, but it would probably be sufficient just to let them know they've got a lot of people pissed at them.
The calculation behind this kind of behavior is this. My trademark is probably not (actually almost certainly is not) being infringed, but if it is infringed later, the defense could slip this into to a pile of evidence that my trademark is invalid. If I lose my trademark, it will cost me a lot, so its worth while to have my lawyer send these folks a threatening letter to save me aggravation later.
This is bad high school debate club tactics. Don't let any point go ever.
What's missing in this calculation is the force of public reproach. Let's allow that the alleged infringment weakens the value of the trademark in some kind of vague and indirect legal way. On the other hand, indiscriminate use of legal threats should damage the trademark in a direct commercial way, to wit: making the public think the trademark's holder is a shmuck.
To that end, polite (so you don't get branded as a red or a member of the lunatic fringe) letters are the most effective tool to fight this.
This is how the Amnesty International model works. Bad behavior, be it tyranny, infringement of free speech, or garden variety alcholism thrives in secrecy, and depends on people not noticing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...change the name of the forum to "Hitchhiker's Guide to Sendmail". (With the words "Don't Panic" in the subject line in large friendly letters.)
Maybe Douglas Adams isn't such an asshole.
--JT
A rather less politely-worded letter was sent to the maintainer of Ulysses for Dummies, a spoof of Joyce's novel, early last year. The hilarious and thorough reply concluded, 'Frankly, we're going to keep the site just as it is, and the successful IDG Books " ... for Dummies" series will just have to learn to live with it.'
Anyway, it's Auto Repair for Dummies, by Deanna Sclar, and it's a classic. Too bad Deanna didn't get on IDG's butt about the title...
On the other side, a friend of mine is one of the authors of the Windows 98 Bible. Then IDG decides to call their book by the same name, even though they were asked to change the name of their later book.
Personally, I would tell IDG to go to hell.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
I don't think trademarks work quite this way. The domain of the For Dummies trademark certainly protects its use in the titles of books (ex. somebody probably could not write a book called OpenGL for Dummies as another poster suggested). However, the use of the phrase For Dummies in conversation, i.e. bulletin board or chat, in the discussion of or suggestion of anything, in commentary on the book, etc. are all covered under parts of trademark law equivalent to Fair Use (I don't know the specifics here, but you can for example compare your product to somebody else's trademarked product by name). The problem here is that this is simply an archive of a public mailing list. You can't apply your trademark to stop discussion of your product, or of products similar to your product (requesting a For Dummies type book on a particular subject). Nobody published a book and used the name For Dummies in the title. Nobody even electronically published a piece of documentation and said it was a "For Dummies" documentation (this is one case where their trademark concerns might hold some water, if somebody actually had written such a thing). I will not stomach corporations trying to restrict people's right to discuss products or anything they want to discuss using their trademarked names. I will mirror the damned email if I want to. I am archiving a public discussion, and if IDG wants to sue me to attempt to control the evolution of the English language, they are welcome to try (IANAL, but I certainly know some).
Kind of makes you feel stupid just reading this, doesn't it?
I hope no one goes through all my old mailing list posts and sends me threatening letters for every (TM) and (R) I forgot to put next to every product I ever mentioned... sigh.
Point idg to
this or maybe this or quite possibly this.
You get the picture.
Fill in ad-infinitum with the trademark of your choice and send the resulting url to any lawyer who is giving you a hard time, and tell them to shut down that site first.
Sure. and next we'll get cease and desist letters if we use the tradmark in a conversation without explicitly adding the disclaimer "'For Dummies' is a tradmark of the IDG Corp."
Like this; "I just read 'Cornholing Sheep For Dummies.' Best book on the subject I've seen. 'For Dummies' is a tradmark of the IDG Corp. You should check it out!
From what I've gathered, the original questionable "for Dummies" use wasn't a "chat room subtitle" at all, but the subject line on an archived mailing list. How stupid does a lawyer have to be not to tell the difference? Or is the phrase "for Dummies" really illegal to use in private email?
What exactly does IDG expect people to do? Not use the phrase "for dummies" without footnoting it in private email? Hunt down every recipient of that email to make sure none are making a public archive of it? Or since they're going after the archiver, do they expect him to run every mail message through a million-entry trademark pattern search before converting it to HTML?
Ironically, though the title of this Slashdot article could be considered an infringement, and isn't an automatic archive of a random email, but was a deliberate word choice by an employee of Andover, a for-profit corporation. If IDG's lawyers don't drop out of hypersensitive mode soon, I know whom they're writing to next...
I'm sorry, but "...for Dummies" was in the vernacular before 1991 - that's what made it popular. It's a pre-diluted trademark.
This doesn't make the need for them to defend it less pressing, naturally. It does make their defense of it more reprehensible, in my eyes:
"That phrase you used to use? Stop using it. It's ours, now. Thank you."
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
If you remove it you are essentially agreeing that you did something wrong.
No matter what you do, DO NOT send that written assurance. Once you send them that they will actually gain legal grounding to prosecute you in a court of law. (If you happen to slip up in the future)
Besides, after all the backlash they get from this article they may think twice about it.
Too bad the "...for Idiots" books are doing a good enough job of diluting their trademark. (For a while I thought they were published by the same group)
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
You write: If we recognise any form of Intellectual property you have to respect this.
For consistency, yes. But I'm glad you phrased it that way, because there is a huge school of thought that says that the very concept of intellectual property is bogus. I find the arguments presented very persuasive, so IDG's claim does not look all that convincing to me.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra