All of this reminds me of an affair in Scotland a few years back where MacDonald's (US megacorp) sued and tried to shut down a small Scottish cafe run by a Mrs MacDonald. It was reported at the time as a typical example of corporate fascism, but actually there was some justification to it: the Scottish cafe was in the same line of business as the megacorp.
As I understand it (IANAL and all that), trademark infringement only covers uses which cause confusion with the trademark holder in a particular line of business. So while "MacDonalds" might be protected for the restaurant business, it would be entirely permissible to use the word "MacDonalds" in conjunction with, say, flower arranging or shipbuilding. The key criteria are whether there is a possibility of confusion or an attempt at deception, aka "passing off".
If the domain's not being used at all, I can't see how either of these criteria can be met.
Yup. As I recall, the legendary Richard Feynman was in charge of that team. In the nine months before he took control of them, they had completed three problems; in the three months afterwards, they completed nine problems. Says something about the effects of Feynman's phenomenal brain power.
Finally let me explain the copyright on those words: they were registered so that Scientology actually has a defense against FUD, and so that the material is not changed over time by people who don't like the way it is. And this has proven necessary.
*sigh* Another person who doesn't understand the difference between trademarks and copyright.
Look: copyright is about intellectual property. Trademarks are about commercial rights over registered terms. Two completely different things. Nobody is disputing that Scientology has IP rights over its own materials, just as Microsoft has over Windows (for now). Nor is anyone disputing that Scientology has the exclusive right to use the word "Scientology" to sell goods and services. But what Scientology has tried to do in this case is to use trademark law to prevent anyone *referring* to Scientology. How can you talk about Scientology without referring to it by name? I'd suggest you have a look at the ruling in Playboy Enterprises v Welles (http://www.isplaw.com/downloa d/PlayboyWellesOrder.htm) for a nearly identical case, which Playboy lost, incidentally.
The Playboy v Playmate case mentioned by Mirele was won by the Playmate - the judge ruled that she made fair use of Playboy's metatags. It's online at http://www.isplaw.com/download/PlayboyWellesOrder.htm. The decisions are directly applicable to the www.xenu.net case - in fact, Scientology's arguments on this occasion are actually weaker than Playboy's unsuccessful arguments in the earlier case. (Why is it no surprise that the Scientologists failed to mention that particular case?)
Slashdot has quite a bit of weight these days. The rest of us UK Govt webmasters are actually rather envious of Mick having been interviewed - Slashdot's reference to him as "Queen Elizabeth II's Webmaster" has a nice ring about it...
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it (IANAL and all that), trademark infringement only covers uses which cause confusion with the trademark holder in a particular line of business. So while "MacDonalds" might be protected for the restaurant business, it would be entirely permissible to use the word "MacDonalds" in conjunction with, say, flower arranging or shipbuilding. The key criteria are whether there is a possibility of confusion or an attempt at deception, aka "passing off".
If the domain's not being used at all, I can't see how either of these criteria can be met.
Yup. As I recall, the legendary Richard Feynman was in charge of that team. In the nine months before he took control of them, they had completed three problems; in the three months afterwards, they completed nine problems. Says something about the effects of Feynman's phenomenal brain power.
*sigh* Another person who doesn't understand the difference between trademarks and copyright.
Look: copyright is about intellectual property. Trademarks are about commercial rights over registered terms. Two completely different things. Nobody is disputing that Scientology has IP rights over its own materials, just as Microsoft has over Windows (for now). Nor is anyone disputing that Scientology has the exclusive right to use the word "Scientology" to sell goods and services. But what Scientology has tried to do in this case is to use trademark law to prevent anyone *referring* to Scientology. How can you talk about Scientology without referring to it by name? I'd suggest you have a look at the ruling in Playboy Enterprises v Welles (http://www.isplaw.com/downloa d/PlayboyWellesOrder.htm) for a nearly identical case, which Playboy lost, incidentally.
- Chris Owen
- Chris Owen
(Excellent interview too; kudos to Mick).
Chris Owen
Webmaster,
Ministry of Defence