Trademark scope [LWN.net]

Trademark scope

Posted May 13, 2004 18:31 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256)
Parent article: MS drags Linspire back to court (Register)

I don't know much about trademark law in general and nothing about Dutch trademark law. However, it would seem unreasonable to hold that "a company formerly known as Lindows Inc." with "a product formerly known as Lindows" could not have any reference to these facts in the publications.

So long as they are not using the disputed term in promotion of their products and in a way that is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace et cetera, ad nauseum.

Of course Lindows was an "in your face" affront to Microsoft's MS Windows.
I won't venture an opinion as to whether there was legal merit to Microsoft's persecution of them for that. [The best analogy I can think of is a memory of some little five year old that ran up to me when I was in my twenties and punched me as hard as he could. I was just sitting in front of the library and had never seen this kid before. In that case "as hard as he could" was less then a fly swat and he could only reach about halfway up my thigh. Microsoft seeking a desist order in the U.S. is akin to asking "mom" to keep her kids in line; litigating again in every country is maybe slapping the kid around; litigating AGAIN after the name has been changed is akin to shoving the crying child to the ground and stomping him into oblivion].

(Log in to post comments)

Analogy

Posted May 13, 2004 20:21 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

The point of the analogy was that Lindows never represented a credible threat to Microsoft. For them to try to protect their trademark in the U.S. was reasonable. When they lost that here and started a campaign of litigation around the world then it became bullying (few companies can afford even the most groundless litigation in multiple countries just as few individuals can afford to defend themselves in any litigation at all).

One problem with modern legal processes is that litigation can be used punitively by the deep pocketed plaintiff even with only the barest wisp of foundation.

JimD

Analogy

Posted May 13, 2004 20:57 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I see your point. But I think Lindows was more of a threat than Microsoft
wishes to admit, otherwise they would have needed to file so many lawsuits
against them. It was also one more example of Microsoft's preference for
lawsuits and market control rather than innovation. I don't see how it
could have been positive exposure for them after so many losses and
settlements on other monopoly issues and on the other hand it provided
significant amounts of exposure for a tiny Linux company. I'm not sure
that the loss of the Lindows name will be a significant setback.

Analogy

Posted May 14, 2004 5:56 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

I tell You what, the good news is, that Estonia(one of the new EU states near the Baltic Sea)relatively reasently legislated a law,
that enables citizens, who can't afford to hire a lawyer by themselves, to have a lawyer by the state, without paying a dime. This way everyone can have protecion against unjustified litigation.
Of cource, in order to get that kind of support, one has to prove it's bad financial situation and no selfrespecting citizen wants to do that, hopefully. Unfortunately I as an estonian must admit, that generally I really like the Finns, as they generally tend to have much higher ethics than an average estonian has, but let's hope, that estonians will catch up with them.

Analogy

Posted May 14, 2004 12:43 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

Great, that way any jerk can sue anyone for anything at no cost! (I'm not
trying to denigrate Estonians, it will happen anywhere.)

Analogy

Posted May 15, 2004 21:44 UTC (Sat) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Luckily, the the free option is not eligible for sueing!!!
It's for defending only. By the way, there is a big
cultural difference between an average EU citizen and an average
US citizen:
average EU citizen's do not sue eachother even halve as much as
it's done by average US citizens.

In Estonia, sueing is seen as very extreme and bad case
and I haven't yet heared,
that anybody(excluding lawyers) would considere sueing as a
way of doing business in Estonia.

For instance, in one case, a local
security firm infringed a copyright of a local software firm. The
issue got in to the news, but it was solved outside of the court, just by
simply paying the license fees. Practically, BSA(read: M$) is the main
firm, that sues others. I guess, that BSA was also the main lobbyer of
the local IP laws, that consider copyright infrigement a huge crime, resulting 30000EUR in fines(to the state, not to the software company, so
no "damages" can be seaked) + up to 3 years of imprisonment for the CEO or
CIO.

So, although there are many things in Estonia, that an intelligent Estoian feels ashame of(like a lieing, authoritarian and indirectly corrupt mayor of the Estonian capital, Tallinn), Estonia is not a suers heaven.

Analogy

Posted May 18, 2004 17:30 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

I think you need to keep in mind that what you hear in the media is NOT IN
ANY WAY an indication of the cultural bent of the "average US citizen".
Remember that you ONLY hear bad things about the US, good news doesn't
sell is the standard excuse.

Analogy

Posted May 15, 2004 21:56 UTC (Sat) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Oh, I forgot to reemphasize:

The "jerk" has to prove his/her bad financial position in order
to be eligible for the free representation. So, the firms or
otherwise citizens with appropriate financial means will have to
hire their representation by themselves. Practically it means, that
one can't pick a poor citizen and blackmail his/her IP, or what ever
else, without a real, community serving, reason.