Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com)
News.com reports
that an attempt by Australia's peak Linux body to register the name "Linux"
on behalf of Linus Torvalds has failed. ""For your client's
trademark to be registerable under the Trade Marks Act, it must have
sufficient 'inherent adaptation to distinguish in the marketplace," said
the letter, which was apparently written by Andrew Paul Lowe, who's named
on the document as the examiner. "In other words, it cannot be a term that
other traders with similar goods and services would need to use in the
ordinary course of trade.""
(Log in to post comments)
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 16, 2005 21:03 UTC (Fri) by aotheoverlord (guest, #3993) [Link] Surely then, under the same logic, shouldn't it now be impossible for Microsoft to trademark "Windows" too?
Or, if they've already done so, their trademark should be summarily dismissed.
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 16, 2005 21:14 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] It seems to me that the regulator has the issue exactly backwards--yes, we know 'Linux' is used on the Internet a lot: so what? How exactly does the inventor of the word not have standing to trademark it? If the attorney does in fact represent Linus, then it would seem pretty obvious that he's the one that should get the trademark. Hmm....
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 17, 2005 3:29 UTC (Sat) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I guess "marketplace" is the keyword. Linus Tordalds has not been on the market selling his "Linux (TM)". If he did, other distributors could have named the distros differently. As it stands now, Linus is not on the market selling Linux, but other entities are.
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 17, 2005 4:28 UTC (Sat) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Ah yes, I forgot it's all about money and marketing, not creativity. My mistake. Vast apologies. ;-(
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 17, 2005 6:14 UTC (Sat) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] Well, it is called a "trade" mark...
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 24, 2005 20:09 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] That's a good point. We sometimes get the idea that trademark law is about owning a word that you invented -- profitting from your creativity, but it's nothing of the sort. It's about being able to sell a product without your customers confusing it with someone else's.There isn't a law that lets you own a word. I think there are not many people who believe in property rights to that extent.
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 16, 2005 22:06 UTC (Fri) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] Doesn't seem too bad to me. If the term can't be trademarked at all, then there's absolutely no danger of a recurrence of the Wm. Della Croce style attack. And to me, that's the most important thing.
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 16, 2005 22:20 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] almost, if it can't be trademarked there's no way to stop microsoft from releaseing 'Windows 2006 Linux Edition' which has absolutly nothing to do with linux (other then any bad press they would generate)
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 16, 2005 22:22 UTC (Fri) by pjdc (subscriber, #6906) [Link] Pity somebody can't do something about "Windows Services for Unix", which is actually Unix services for Windows.
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 17, 2005 3:20 UTC (Sat) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I heard Microsoft has paid "somebody". So that "somebody" is doing something to Linux instead.
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 23, 2005 17:49 UTC (Fri) by sammythesnake (guest, #17693) [Link] If by "someone" you mean to suggest SCO, then perhaps you didn't realise the *trademark* "UNIX" is owned by somebody entirely other: http://www.unix.org/trademark.html
HTH
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 17, 2005 2:00 UTC (Sat) by mcm (guest, #31917) [Link] i've heard these arguments a few times and i'm pretty sure that when microsoft brought out something with linux in the name, that would pretty much mean that they're finished and cannot compete anymore. i don't believe anyone would let themselves be fooled by this.
aditionally, once a term has become generic it doesn't mean the term has lost it's meaning: selling windows or a non-linux-like os as 'foo linux' would still easily be regarded as fraud.
so to be honest i would actually prefer the term to become generic worldwide, as this would prevent others from trademarking it and permit anyone to use it -- the fears of misuse are far exaggerated in my view, as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last five years has heard of linux and knows approximately what it is.
Bid to trademark the word 'Linux' rejected (News.com) Posted Sep 17, 2005 2:01 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] In that case, they could possibly be sued for false advertising. From a Ubuntu Hoary system: The vast majority of these aren't trademarked, and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them. Also, "GNU" isn't a trademark, is it?
Double standard Posted Sep 17, 2005 0:36 UTC (Sat) by gregwilkins (subscriber, #515) [Link] I did a search and Windows is definitely registered to M$ as a trademark by IP Australia. Yet all the same arguements apply, it is a term used by traders to sell apples and linux distros and there are many other similar trademarks registered.
I hope the applicant at least asks why this double standard is applied?
Double standard Posted Sep 17, 2005 2:09 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] If I remember correctly, in the Microsoft vs. Lindows lawsuits, Microsoft was only able to win in non-English speaking locations, and evetually settled out of court in Lindows' favor in order to avoid losing their trademark.
Yes, though perhaps in a slightly different way Posted Sep 17, 2005 7:24 UTC (Sat) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] The part that got me was the quote at the end of the article writeup: "In other words, it cannot be a term that other traders with similar goods and services would need to use in the ordinary course of trade."Now, Linux is not a term that could normally be considered something other traders with ANY goods or services would need to use in the ordinary course of trade. It's a coined word, has never applied to any other product and has not been published in any English dictionary. Who, other than a dealer in an Operating System based around the Linux kernel, is going to use the term for commercial purposes, particularly when selling computer software? What of Windows? Well, most GUIs and widget sets create "windows" which means that other traders with similar goods and services will quite definitely need to use the word in the course of ordinary trade. From the perspective of trademarks (which usually includes "similar" words), the X Window environment clashes. It's not the same word, but similar enough if most trademark lawsuits are to be believed. For that matter, most window managers have the word "window" in them (duh!) so, again, those selling or otherwise trading in such software will have to use a word in the course of ordinary trade that is covered by the trademark.
Yes, though perhaps in a slightly different way Posted Sep 17, 2005 11:22 UTC (Sat) by chbarts (guest, #28896) [Link] From the perspective of trademarks (which usually includes "similar" words), the X Window environment clashes. First, it isn't 'X Window' or 'X Windows' or anything like that: It's the X Window System; that is, it's a window system called X. It is the descendant of a window system called W, which is probably a more logical name for a window system. Second, X isn't an OS. X is a software library and a protocol that actually runs on multiple OSes, most of them Unix variants but also including VMS and Windows and various DOS clones for IBM-compatible PCs (among others, I'm sure). There are also standalone X terminals that don't really run a full OS at all, but merely implement one end of the X protocol and contain the hardware to make that worthwhile. There isn't strong overlap between the two problem domains and, more importantly, there is no reasonable way someone in the market for specific software would get confused between X and Windows. Finally, the term 'X Window System' is a trademark of The Open Group, the same people who hold the trademark on 'UNIX'. X was invented in 1984, while Microsoft Windows only goes back to 1985. This would certainly come up if MS ever tried to get The Open Group to give up that mark. I don't know when the mark was first registered, however, an all-important point of law in these cases.
Yes, though perhaps in a slightly different way Posted Sep 23, 2005 17:54 UTC (Fri) by sammythesnake (guest, #17693) [Link] Just a gentle reminder.
1) RE: X windows running as an interface on top of an OS, this is exactly what Windows was doing up to version 3.11
2) X terminals are certainly not unique in providing a graphical engine removed from the server on which software runs, there are in fact winterms out there (I believe Wyse make them, having found that nobody wanted their X terminals any more :-s)
HTH
Yes, though perhaps in a slightly different way Posted Sep 24, 2005 5:21 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > 1) RE: X windows running as an interface on top of an OS, this is exactly what Windows was doing up to version 3.11 That is incorrect. Windows 3.x provides things whose equivalents in a Unix OS are implemented in the kernel rather than in the X server, e.g. multitasking, virtual memory, support for DLLs, etc.
Double standard Posted Sep 18, 2005 4:23 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Yet all the same arguements apply
This is not necessarily true. When Microsoft applied for their trade mark in Australia, this term (Windows) may have not been used the way Linux has been used by many businesses for years. In fact, I would bet it wasn't.
And, there may have not been any confusingly similar marks registered at the time, like there are now in the case of Linux.
Unfortunately, this application was probably too late.
A little bit more complicated than it looks Posted Sep 18, 2005 4:15 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] First off, I was one of the people that signed a statutory declaration supporting Linus' bid for making Linux a trademark in Australia. So, it would have been nice if it worked, but it was really a long shot.
If you read the letter from IP Australia (link is off the News.com article), you'll find that there were mulitple grounds for rejection, not just one. Unfortunately, the application was "too little, too late" as the term was used by many businesses for years, so it has lost its exclusivity status. You'll also note that another registered (and, according to the examiner, confusingly similar) trademark was also the reason examiner refused registration.
But, it's not the end of the world. At least nobody else can claim the rights to this mark. I know this is only a half-solution, but it's better than nothing.
|
|||||||||||||