Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.

Create an account

Subscribe to LWN

Return to the Press page

LWN.net Weekly Edition for February 9, 2012

XBMC 11 "Eden"

LWN.net Weekly Edition for February 2, 2012

A tempest in a toybox

LWN.net Weekly Edition for January 26, 2012

Printable page

Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

[Posted February 20, 2004 by ris]

ZDNet UK reports that a French court has ruled against MandrakeSoft in an intellectual-property dispute with United States-based Hearst Holdings and King Features Syndicate. "The decision could force the Paris-based software company to surrender its trademark and domain names and to pay nearly $90,000 (70,000 euros) in damages to the U.S. companies, holders of the rights to the comic strip character Mandrake the Magician. The comic strip marks its 70th anniversary this year."

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 19:40 UTC (Fri) by TheOneKEA (subscriber, #615) [Link]

What?

Since when can a software distribution and a magician be confused with each other?

I can understand the arguments of trademark dilution, but how did it get this far?

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 19:43 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

I didn't realize Hearst was involved. If it's the same Hearst that arranged to get marijuana made illegal, for fear that widespread use of hemp paper would destroy its wood production business, then I understand how such greed can continue, even now.

They were in a great position to bring about the anti-marijuana laws, because they owned a lot of newspapers along with the forests that were being destroyed to produce them.

Maybe I'm wrong; maybe it's different "Hearst", but I doubt it.

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 21, 2004 3:12 UTC (Sat) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link]

Well, he's been dead for quite a long time. So yeah, it's probably a different Herst.

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 20:17 UTC (Fri) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link]

They had a logo that involved a penguin magician. If they knew about Mandrake the magician when they chose this, then they were pretty dumb to "borrow" the idea. It's a bit of a stretch from comics to linux but I'd imagine if instead of a magician their penguin had looked like a viking or somesuch then this case wouldn't have stood a chance.

If they didn't know about Mandrake the Magician then they were just very unfortunate.

I'm not saying that the case really does have merits but if Hearts and King didn't bring the case then they risked losing their trademark.

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 20:26 UTC (Fri) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link]

Mandrake the Magician first appeared about 70 years ago.

Just yet another reason why modern copyright law is totally
ludicious. MtM should have been in the public domain a
loooooong time ago.

sheesh.

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 20:51 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Except this is about trademark law ;)

Are trademarks forever?

Posted Feb 20, 2004 21:31 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Should Charles Dodgson's heirs be allowed to sue anyone for use of the characters in Alice in Wonderland, or for naming a product "Mad Hatter"?

In any case, trademarks are supposed to be narrow: we have Sun Oil Company (Sunoco), Sun Microsystems, and Sun Records; Apple Records and Apple Computer, etc.

Are trademarks forever?

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:43 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Do you see me arguing that they should?

I'm not one that believes current trademark law (at least in the US) would
support such wide protection of trademarks. I certainly think it should
not. Generally speaking trademarks are only concerned with avoiding
customer confusion so identical or near identical marks in different areas
of industry shouldn't be affected since they have little chance to cause
confusion.

And as far as I know you can always use a trademark to refer to the product
or company distributing the product. So I can say Sun makes Solaris or I
hate SCO or whatever without worry. The only recent ugly changes to
trademark law have to do with dilution, and I haven't seen that brought up
before in this thread.

Are trademarks forever?

Posted Feb 20, 2004 23:16 UTC (Fri) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]

And Apple Records had sued Apple Computer, and they had an agreement that Apple Computer would not get into music-related businesses. Apple Computer later broke that agreement, got sued again by Apple Records, and settled out of court. And recently with iTunes, they again got sued by Apple Records.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer

Unix is everywhere

Posted Feb 20, 2004 20:50 UTC (Fri) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

After viewing this page, courtesy of some guy named Dennis it's almost too bad that SCO doesn't own the Unix trademark.

I wonder if Scott McNealy buys Sun detergent?

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 21:27 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link]

this is getting darn stupid not to mention pathetic.. childish
spoilt bratatish and a down right insult.

Is this how the M$ based world is going to try and win the fight against
the Open source community seems sofirst of they go for Lindows now
Mandrake what next Red Hat, Suse Yellow Dog to mention just three come on
world what is going on here stop scraping your tooshes on the floor try a
little SUPPORT for the Open Source / Free Community for once we are
realy nice people you know we only bite when hacked off with stupid dumb
pathetic childish moves like this .

Pete.

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 21, 2004 3:37 UTC (Sat) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link]

Sorry to veer so wildly off course, but "spoilt bratatish" sounds like a dish from some Harry Potter story :O)

Yes, this whole situation with Mandrake sucks. This is even worse than George Harrison getting sued for `ripping off' "He's So Fine" with "My Sweet Lord".

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 21:42 UTC (Fri) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

Would somebody care to enlighten me? Who, or what on earth is Mandrake the Magician? Being as the Trademark is from United Features Syndicate I assume it is some sort of comic strip or cartoon. But obviously not a particularly recent one, say in the last thirty years. So how can Mandrakesoft possibly be misusing something that is so far out of the public eye?

Just goes to prove the law is totally stupid I guess.

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:01 UTC (Fri) by alonzo (guest, #2770) [Link]

Mandrake didn't exactly originate with 'Mandrake the Magician'.
Dictionary.com reveals:

mandrake (pronunciation key ...)
n.
1.
1. A southern European plant (Mandragora officinarum) having greenish-yellow flowers and a branched root. This plant was once believed to have magical powers because its root resembles the human body.
2. The root of this plant, which contains the poisonous alkaloid hyoscyamine. Also called mandragora.
2. See May apple.

There are several other entries as well.

I sure don't see how anyone could confuse 'Mandrake the Magician' and 'Mandrake Linux'????

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 22, 2004 18:10 UTC (Sun) by bockman (guest, #3650) [Link]

(Linux) Mandrake initially had a logo with a penguin dressed like a magician. So I guess it _was_ inspired to the old comics character. But probably not with the idea to steal a trademark or capitalize or other people advertisement investment, but only because 'Mandrake' has became a 'mandrake', i.e. a common name to indicate a magician. Unfortunately, what common speach acknowledges, the law does not.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:05 UTC (Fri) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

I have to say that "Mandrake the Magician" and the Mandrake magician
branding them are pretty clear trademark claims. I'm not on the fence
on this one.

Much as I would like to pain Hearst as the bad guy here ... I can't.

Personally I think that Mandrake should be able to keep their name,
but should be compelled to drop all "magician" and "prestidigitation"
references and allusions (pardon the pun) from their logos and
marketing.

The would be welcomed to develop a new marketing image around the
plant (though shying away from its occult images and properties might
be tough at times).

However in this case they lose. It sounds like a pretty blatant case
of commercial use of someone else's trademark and the mere fact that
*I* had never heard of this "Mandrake the Magician" doesn't mean that
Mandrake Inc. didn't unfairly derive value from the familiarity it
may have had for others.

At the same time that I agree with that under our current laws (U.S.
and internationally) I have to also wonder where to put the balance.

Was Mandrake the Magician ever published internationally? If not,
then a good argument could be made that Mandrake the software is allowed
its branding outside of this country. That's untenable from a
practical standpoint so I'm just being theoretical. It seems like
it's derivative. However both images are derived from the traditional
folklore associations of the plant to "magick" and thence filtered
through the benign popularization of "magic" (prestidigitation).

As a global economy and society how far can we "scale" these
notions of "trademark" and "service mark." Clearly the intent of
trademark is reasonable: prevent companies or individuals from
fraudulently representing their goods or services as being from
another established, reputable entity. It would be folly to
suggest that we could have an equitable, fair marketplace without
any form of trademark protection. I could sell any swill I wanted
in an old "Coca-cola" (TM) bottle! They are as necessary as
laws against counterfeiting.

However, the devil will always be in the details. It is reasonable
to argue that, after 70 years in print, MtM was never going to branch
out into offering computer/Linux software. However, it's likely that
MtM could or will appear online as a syndicated cartoon like
UserFriendly or Dilbert, etc. That muddies the waters since the
similarities in the names and imagery could then be confusing and
misconstrued.

A similar problem could have occured between TuxTops and Mandrakesoft;
the TuxTops logo was a penguin with a tophat. Unfortunately the
tophat did bear a resemblance to the sort worn by magicians. Although
the artistic styling of the two images was somewhat different --- it
was not so much so that I could claim that "reasonable persons" would
be unlikely to confuse them or to infer some relationship between the
two companies.

(Obviously the TuxTops case would not have been a problem vs. the
cartoon, since it was not making reference to magicians and had no
implication of the name "Mandrake" associated with it. In fact the
name "TuxTops" and the "top hat" seem to clearly show that no
"magic" was intended).

I remember reading about another case involving a small neighborhood
liquor store named "MacDonald's" (in Portland, Oregon in the skid road
district). (20 years ago). In this case the small business owner
prevailed for several reasons: his name was Mac Donald, he was the
proprietor and owner, it was a different spelling, his signs and logos
contained neither red nor yellow (rough hewn white lettering on a
battered old wooden sign), etc. However, there were stipulations in
the judgement. First that the owner could not franchise under that
name, and that the name would have to be changed if he ever sold it,
and also that he was enjoined from ever useing red, yellow, or any
depiction of golden arches in his name, logo, signage or other
marketing materials. The Oregon (supreme?) courts held that the
right of a person to name their business after themselves held
precedence over the opposing claims, the fact that this business was
related to "food and beverage sales and distribution" notwithstanding.
(If he'd tried to convert the place into a burger joint or called
anything sold in the story a "Whopper" (TM) then he'd probably have
lost).

Anyway, despite the knee jerk populist leanings of some vocal members
of the Linux community I have to say that this is not a case of
unjust deep pockets trampling on the rights of the underdog.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:20 UTC (Fri) by ringlord (subscriber, #6309) [Link]

Mandrake used to run as a side strip in a comic here in Norway for many years. The first time I heard of the Mandrake distribution, I thought about thry got the name from this strip.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 21, 2004 9:56 UTC (Sat) by glettieri (subscriber, #15705) [Link]

I have to agree on this. The charachter, at least, is pretty well known here in Italy. I always thought that Mandrake Linux derived its name from Mandrake the Magician. I surely know of plant named 'mandragora'. Didn't know its english name was 'mandrake', though.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 21, 2004 14:41 UTC (Sat) by anandrajan (subscriber, #146) [Link]

To add to the chorus, Mandrake the Magician comics were quite popular in India where I grew up. When I started using Mandrake linux, I saw plenty of references to Lothar, images of magic wands, top hats etc. and remember thinking (a few years ago) that this was a trademark infringement lawsuit waiting to happen.

Anand

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:22 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

Why? What's wrong with parody and humor? Most people won't even get the joke.

It's much like "Bob" showing up in odd places on movie screens, in the Atari's ASCII print set (if you choose graphics instead of $28-$31), etc.

This is precisely my point, all the time; rich people have a terrible penchant for acting like asses when they get frightened of losing a penny.

There *are* cases where trademarks ought to be defended, but this is definitely *not* one of them.

Where the Hell would anyone get the idea that Madrakesoft "owned" Mandrake the Magician, Lothar, or any of the other tongue-in-cheek silliness they were doing? Mandrake the Magician was an *entertainment character,* not a *software product!*

What if there were a town called "RedHat" and somebody decided to release a "Redhat Laundry Detergent?" Should Red Hat be suing them? I don't think so.

Let's face it: This is all about moneyed elite pushing around people who are trying to do something, maybe even something they don't like (like, say, encouraging people to share their work for free.) Otherwise, it would never have happened.

I wouldn't say this except Hearst is involved.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 20, 2004 23:54 UTC (Fri) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

Mandrakesoft doesn't count as parody. It's an ongoing business
concerns and it's use of these logos and names was clearly commercial!

I know I'm going to get castigated for this too, but ....

Posted Feb 21, 2004 2:15 UTC (Sat) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link]

Gotta agree with AnswerGuy on this one. You're dealing with a commercial entity leveraging off elements from another commercial entity and this is wrong. Even worse, it's needless. Along those lines, the new community e-smith (SME server) logo is ill advised as well.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:48 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Hmm. But what about the fact Mandrake Linux has nothing to do with
cartoons? I guess you could argue the logo was a cartoon but that is an
"innovative" way to look at things. Also, there are different categories
of trademarks which get differing levels of protection. Since "Mandrake"
is a well-documented word with a long tradition of having to do with magic
I don't see it as a very strong mark. If the cartoon was called
"Ghawofehuawlewaf the Magician" and Madrake Linux were called
"Ghawofehuawlewaf Linux" I would see a stronger argument for protecting the
mark in other industries and markets. But it's not. It's an English word.

Read the whole thing

Posted Feb 21, 2004 0:14 UTC (Sat) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

As I said, the fact that Hearst may wish to publish this cartoon on the 'net (like Dilbert et al). is likely to cause some confusion in the marketplace. There is likely to be a misconception that Mandrake the Magician officially endorses Mandrakesoft. Hearst can quite reasonably argue that the value they've developed in the cartoon has commercial value to advertisers and that Mandrakesoft's unlicensed used of such similar images and names impinges upon that value.

The exemption for separate markets or fields of endeavor works fine when an auto-body shop suffers a name or logo collision with a hair stylist (or anything that's so clearly unrelated. However, the value of cartoons is much broader since they can be used to advertise and "endorse" almost anything.

Of course this whole topic is fraught with slippery slopes. We can argue about these things endlessly. However, Linux and Sun brands of soap or laundry detergent clearly are in a different world than anything related to computers --- even if you market them over the Internet. (The fact that Linux is a newly coined word whereas "Sun" is a common English word actually also has bearing -- but let's not quibble over it).

I agree that the "trademarks" covering "Mickey Mouse's" (TM) ears and other artificial personae are far-reaching. Possibly too much so. At some point we get into the same issues of fair use that plague public figures (real people like actresses, models, and former pro-wrestlers elected to be governors). Fair use dictates that individuals can talk about such people, that the media can use their images to report news, etc. However, commercial use to imply endorsement of products or services, for example, isn't allowed.

Is that purely a trademark issue? Probably not. IANAL (I am not a lawyer!) However, common sense dictates that we must have some control over how our names are *commercially* used. (Of course we also have recourse through slander or libel for certain other, generally non-commercial, mis-uses or abuses of our names).

I also agree that too much of the enforcement of these legal principles is for sale to the highest bidder. Not that the judiciary is subject to widespread outright corruption --- but rather that the guild class of lawyers, legislators, and judges have evolved into an elaborate priesthood with rituals, scriptures, and arcana that combine to exact their own form of taxation from the general populace. (This is actually pretty similar to the ways in which ancient priest classes operated, as well).

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 21, 2004 0:27 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

" Was Mandrake the Magician ever published internationally? "

Unfortunatly the answer is yes,..., at least i know for sure that in Portugal and Brasil they did.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 21, 2004 3:12 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

It was also published in spanish, I'd guess in Spain, and distributed here in Latin America.

I know I'm going to get castigated for this, but ....

Posted Feb 22, 2004 14:16 UTC (Sun) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link]

on the contrary (SP) it most definatley IS a case of Linux getting
crapped on by those with the money and the sooner people see it and deal
with it the better it's yet another example of M$and friends trying by
any means fair or foul to kill Linux off if you choose not to believe the
truth then taht is your burden but wise up cus this is just the start ..

SCO Mandrake some jerk magician what next M$ has already tried several
times they have money in the SCO thing i would not mind betting they have
funded or at least part funded this as well .

pete.

Trademark law: Is this bogus, or not?

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:18 UTC (Fri) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]

Normally, trademark law is pretty fair in the US (though it's downright awful in Germany). Essentially, a trademark protects your identity as a business, so other people can't pretend to be you and steal your customers. It's generally a pretty good system.

Trademarks are normally specific to a single category of goods, though, so there shouldn't be any conflict between "the Mandrake operating system" and "the 'Mandrake the Magician' comic strip".

The problem is that Mandrake (the OS) uses a cartoony logo with a magician in it, which is definitely getting onto dangerous ground. It might be one of life's weird coincidences, or it might be a truly stupid decision by Mandrake's management.

However, mandrake roots are traditionally associated with magic and witchcraft (they're a narcotic, and they look funny). So there's a good chance this is a coincidence.

So in theory, Hearst Holdings probably shouldn't be upset that people name an operating system "Mandrake", and they shouldn't be upset that people associate mandrakes with magicians. But once you throw in a cartoon of a magician and associate it with the name "Mandrake", you're probably on very thin ice indeed.

And since Hearst Holdings has a reputation for being, um, legally tenacious, Mandrake Linux is probably lucky to get off with a $90,000 fine and a name change. (I am not a lawyer, and especially not a French one, so you'd be a total idiot to take my opinions as legal advice.)

Trademark law: Is this bogus, or not?

Posted Feb 20, 2004 22:43 UTC (Fri) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Sorry, no coincidence.

I remember reading several interviews about the founder of Mandrake Linux, Gael Duval where he says that the name "Linux-Mandrake 5.1" (the version number of this first mandrake release is mirroring the then current Red Hat, of which it was a refinement) was inspired by the fact that his little brother happened to be reading Mandrake-the-Magician-comics. And I guess Gael himself might have been a fan too.

So the use of penguin magicians and magicians hats as logos is not a coincidence either, it's a direct consequence of this.

It might have seemed like a good idea for a young hacker to name a modded Red Hat after his favourite comic, but when it caught fire and he started to run a business on it... should have remembered to come up with his own trademark for the 6.0 version.

As a mandrake user, I'm just happy the fine isn't bigger and that the software will probably continue to serve me well, with whatever name.

henrik

Trademark law: Is this bogus, or not?

Posted Feb 20, 2004 23:01 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

I'm also happy about the fine not being bigger, but I definitely don't agree about the connection, co-incidence or no.

If anything, it's a tribute, or a tongue-in-cheek bit of humor. And I still stand by my view that these business-people have become a bunch of stuffed-shirts over money, and that something has to be done about it.

Should Ivan Stang (or Doug Smith, or whatever,) have sued Patrick Volkerding over Slackware, or his occasional references to "Slack" or "getting slack" or "Bob" or whatever? I think not. Not even if Ivan and Pat hadn't had common friends. It's pointless, and none of MandrakeSoft's play on the Magician theme has anything to do with the comic book, nor does it threaten any publisher's business.

Unless, of course, that publisher happens to be someone who doesn't believe in a society where he's prevented from collecting all the money he wants, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

Trademark law: Is this bogus, or not?

Posted Feb 21, 2004 16:15 UTC (Sat) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Well, we are all entitled to an opinion and it's not a surprise people on lwn will take side with the linux distro. But personally, I think that for once we have a trademark dispute that actually has some merit to it. Lindows, Mobilix etc... were in my opinion absurd, but here we have the exact same name, and as I said, it was actually taken from the comic. Then we have magician themed logotypes and at one point mdk actually had a project named Lothar (I can't remember what it was about, but that's not the point now is it). Let's be straight about this, mdklinux will be needing a new name soon. Any suggestions?

henrik

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 21, 2004 3:02 UTC (Sat) by Ajarn (guest, #8521) [Link]

This s getting stupid.

I am a carpenter by trade.
I am also selling < doors > and < windows >
I was selling < windows > in '98, and I was selling < windows > in 2000,
and I was selling < windows > in 2003.
Not to mention all the Service Packs (D.I.Y ) I sold.

Will microsoft sue me now ??
Shit, I have to change trade now.

sorry, just want to contribute to the stupidity

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 23, 2004 5:49 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Worse. You could get sued by members of the band Doors. If any of them are still alive ;-)

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 21, 2004 3:32 UTC (Sat) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link]

it really sounds like the fight near the end in a Hollywood
Blockbuster where the good guy yells at tbe bad guy: "Is that all ya
got! Is that all ya got?! hit me ! hit me!" and then the good guy gets so
pissed by the weak punch of his opponent, he slams with one stroke the
entire room in 1000 pieces using the bad guy as projectile.

I simply cannot believe what these old phart trademark owners have come
to. Like some old dustry miljonair with his antigue wooden walking stick
found out "another Mandrake" was hurting his illegal obtained freebee
life. Why illegal life? Cause only poor criminals seek to fight in such a
way.

Trademark Laws are a poor criminals invention just after they became
rich.

Robert

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 21, 2004 6:16 UTC (Sat) by edvac (guest, #13074) [Link]

If there was no money to be extracted, would they have taken the thing to court, just on the principle of what is ethical and paid their lawyers to set the record straight, knowing they would get absolutely no monetary tribute? Or, did the publisher really loose that sum of money because of the software company? This is really pushing the limits of sanity.
cartoon_magician != software_name

Failure to protect some property rights ...

Posted Feb 21, 2004 6:45 UTC (Sat) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

... can result in the loss of those rights.

If I allow unfettered, flagrant passage across my land for long enough,
never exercising my right to limit such access --- it can be deemed to
have become a public thoroughfar and I can lose the right to fence it
off or charge a toll, etc.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if trademarks *must* be protected
to address that sort of risk. However it does seem likely. If Kleenex
(TM) is used for long enough, flagrantly enough without acknowlegement,
as a generic term of "facial tissues" they may lose it.

So, it may be that Hearst would have felt compelled to persue the case
regardless of whether there was any blood in that thar turnip.

Failure to protect some property rights ...

Posted Feb 21, 2004 8:05 UTC (Sat) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Yes, this is a well-known property of trademarks. Unlike copyrights or patents they must be used to continue to exist. In fact you don't need to register a trademark at all; you create one just by using it. And you give it up by not using it, or you can weaken it by allowing others to use it for their products. The Kleenex issue you mentioned is actually different. People weren't infringing on the trademark in a traditional sense. They were simply using it as a generic term. They were turning it into an English word. That's a different way to lose a trademark. That's the "dilution" stuff I mentioned above and isn't directly relevant here. I think we can agree on those points. Where I disagree with you is that I do not see this as an appropriate action to protect their trademark rights. (And of course IANAL either.)

Failure to protect some property rights ...

Posted Feb 21, 2004 22:13 UTC (Sat) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

And anyone who's ever seen a corporate image and trademark usage guide will tell you that one of the points such documents make *strenuously* is that you must *never* use the word as a noun:

Kleenex *tissues*. Whopper *sandwich*.

About the only major trademark venue I can think of that violates this on any kind of regular basis is automobiles: you don't hear Oldsmobile Cutlass *sedan* or *coupe* (or wagon, though I realize that they don't make one of those anymore -- well, ok, they don't make *any* of those anymore, but you know what I mean...).

I must say I agree with those who feel there's a valid case here.

What *I* disagree with in this case is something Mark McCormack warned about in his excellent, though somewhat old, book The Terrible Truth About Lawyers: What I Learned at Yale Law School, and that was this: don't allow the lawyers to *run the business*. You're the executive: you make decisions based on *business* priciples and advantage. Sometimes, this means solving a legal problem in some fashion the lawyers think is less than the safest one.

This is a case in point. Hearst *should have* *licensed* Mandrakesoft, extracted some back royalties, and required backlinks and mention on MDK's web and print. Goodwill.

Hearst's execs clearly haven't the testicular fortitude to run their own company.

I hope it chokes them, some fine day.

But hell, maybe it's just me.

So many things are just me.

Previous message a tad over the top

Posted Feb 22, 2004 4:26 UTC (Sun) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

You're proposing that Heart's management consider trading off income now versus income later from a company which has a history of losses and expects to only break even in FY2003/4?

Heart's management could well argue that they made a business decision based on a hard-nosed assessment of the likelyhood of future licensing income.

Previous message a tad over the top

Posted Feb 22, 2004 17:24 UTC (Sun) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

What I'm *suggesting* is that it was extortion, plain and simple. You have to prove *damage*,
do you not, in a trademark infringment suit? Clearly, there's little risk of deprivation of
income here, nor disparagement of image, and confusion is a *much* harder road to tread, from
what I've seen, though admittedly, I'm not even a paralegal.

So there are a bunch more people who hate Hearst now.

I'm sure Hearst doesn't care, but the chances that it could bite them on the ass financially,
while low, are non-zero, and there *were* better ways to accomplish it. They could have gotten
substantially more than 90 grand in free advertising for a comic which -- clearly -- not
everyone has ever heard of, and not pissed *anyone* off.

Except their inside general counsel.

Sounds like a good tradeoff to *me*...

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 21, 2004 9:38 UTC (Sat) by edmundo (guest, #616) [Link]

First Asterix and Mobelix, and now this.

Can anyone think of a cartoon character that wears a red hat?
I think I have an idea for a law suit ...

Change to new name, then...

Posted Feb 22, 2004 10:09 UTC (Sun) by janpla (guest, #11093) [Link]

I suggest they change to a new name - how about FCUX?

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 22, 2004 21:57 UTC (Sun) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]

Good riddance. I never liked the name (though I like the company and the products(s)). I also made the connection to the cartoon character. Yes, I understand there's an investment in the name at this point, but I think there's a positive angle here -- this is an opportunity for the company to come up with something better, with a little free publicity to go along with the name change.

Peter Yellman

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 23, 2004 14:11 UTC (Mon) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link]

I'm sorry to hear about this, but I'm also 100% certain that MandrakeSoft will handle the situation. A memorable, attractive trademark is a useful business tool, but let's not underestimate the value of a strong reputation. Mandrakesoft will survive under whatever new name they decide to do business.

Rob Levin

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 23, 2004 19:30 UTC (Mon) by mhearne (guest, #19579) [Link]

I don't know how they say it in French, but in English a Mandrake is a male duck.
Copyright that!

MandrakeSoft ordered to drop trademark (ZDNet)

Posted Feb 26, 2004 18:31 UTC (Thu) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link]

Uh, no. That's just drake. Mandrake, currently repopularized by Harry Potter, is an old English term for mandragora, which has nothing to do with ducks. Sorry.