Shuttleworth: Mistakes made and addressed

Posted Nov 10, 2013 20:47 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (guest, #27950)
In reply to: Shuttleworth: Mistakes made and addressed by ledow
Parent article: Shuttleworth: Mistakes made and addressed

They aren't allowed to "defend" their trademark regarding fixubuntu.com. Read the reply from a lawyer at EFF at https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-tr.... One quote: "not supported by trademark law".

logo

Posted Nov 11, 2013 14:50 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (1 responses)

Nominative use protection undoubtedly applies to the text "fix Ubuntu" which now makes up the headline for the site. What's the site about? Fixing (in the author's opinion) Ubuntu. Easy. Circumlocutions are fun, but courts have found that you're not obliged to use them. No need to say "Major entertainment company fronted by a mouse" when you can say "Disney".

It seems reasonable (based on case history) to presume that fixubuntu.com would be protected as well, but I wouldn't want to bet serious money on it because courts sometimes have (or can be influenced to have, by smart lawyers) weird ideas about the Internet.

However, the original site (before this controversy) also featured Ubuntu's logo. Nominative use definitely does NOT protect such uses by default. You have to show that you _needed_ the mark, and the logo wasn't needed by the fixubuntu.com site, nobody is looking at that front page and thinking "Hmm, maybe this is about Ubuntu brand clothes pegs or Ubuntu vacuum cleaners, without a logo I just can't tell".

logo

Posted Nov 11, 2013 15:04 UTC (Mon) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

The original email stated the name of the site had to be changed as well and implied that this decision was final. So the name of the site as well as usage of the logo. The initial comment made on LWN here stated that Canonical was within their rights. It is not that clear at all.