Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 21:43:17 12/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2000 at 18:11:17, Amir Ban wrote: >On December 10, 2000 at 16:30:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On December 10, 2000 at 13:11:56, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>I don't disagree in what you write in so far as it relates to common sense, >>>though I suspect that the actual law doesn't share your common sense view in >>>many respects. >>> >>>What needs to be remembered is that trademarks are not about semantics but about >>>business. There are several ways trademarks can be abused to hurt business >>>interests: >>> >>>- You can use a well-known brandname or a similarly sounding name to try to >>>capitalize on the familiarity and good reputation that goes with that name, or >>>even to mislead people to think that you are selling that brand. >>> >>>- A big company with marketing muscle can swamp a small company out of existence >>>if it decides to use, intentionally or by accident, the smaller company's trade >>>names. Without the protection of trademark laws, the small company would need to >>>rename, redesign and remarket its products, and usually small companies don't >>>have spare funds and time for that. >>> >>>My guess is that the law is less concerned with semantics and more concerned >>>with business damage and exploitation. >>> >>>In the IBM case, it is easy to see how if IBM really intended to make DB-Junior >>>a mass-selling product, as was discussed at some point, it would make it really >>>hard to get along with a name like Junior. BTW, I think the legally-minded and >>>cautious IBM would be much easier to convince they were on bad legal ground than >>>this forum. >>> >>>The reason I suspect your common-sense arguments do not apply is because I know >>>of an American company called MacDonald that has been suing any MacWhatever shop >>>in any business not remotely connected to food, in places not remotely close to >>>America, and where you could not even guess what their grievance was. >>> >>>I heard they have even did that in Scotland. >>> >>>Amir >> >>http://web.cln.com/archives/charlotte/newsstand/c041297/hal.htm >> >>An interesting article. There is a problem, which is that you are on the wrong >>side. You aren't the Scottish clan in this case, you are the restaurant chain. >>It is true that the relative sizes are reversed, but I think the basic arguments >>are still valid. The natural tendency when regarding David vs Goliath is to >>sympathize with David. But David is not right just because he's small. He's >>right because he's right. If Goliath is right, he's right. > >You have read the article you quoted backwards. There Goliath was legally right, >but it was still morally infuriating that he decided to press the point against >David. There is no such problem when David is right. I don't think I read it backwards. It's ridiculous that McDonalds can tradmark Mc* when * is anything food related, especially in Scotland. They bombed that woman with lawyers, but there's nothing that leads me to believe that they are right in any sense including the legal sense. Lawyers are not only for proving right and wrong, they are used to send a message that you are willing to waste money to get your way. If your opponent is not also willing, you win by default. I'm sure these big companies do this all the time, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. I moved away from the "Junior" case here, but I didn't want people to get the idea that I support McDonalds' attempt to de-Mc-ify Scotland. bruce >Amir > > >> >>I don't think you would get exclusive rights to that word in all computer chess >>contexts. It is a commonly used suffix. We have anecdotal evidence that it has >>been used in the case of amateur or research programs in the past. >> >>If it means anything, I don't think that it would have caused you any damages >>had they shipped DB Jr, at least not in the US. In other places, I don't know >>how they would cope with any possible confusion. >> >>bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.