Message 01599 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01253 Message: 28/49 L12 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: Which Fedora is the real Fedora?



Ben 

During the process of registration and before the grant of the TM is made 
their is an opposition period and based upon the stuff that would be in the 
Act and general principles at first glance it is a pretty good opposition to 
the grant of the TM to Red Hat. 

I read the NY time s article as well. The Uni guy was beign a bit meely 
mouthed but it is clear you have two things in the same TM class competing 
for the same name. 

You are right they might just need to find another name of version of it.

I just thought it was cute

Martin

On Monday 24 November 2003 13:30, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[ Follow-ups to the list, please. I read the list and don't need extra
copies. :) ]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:06:03AM +0200, Martin Hardie wrote:
Here is a good one for all those in the "doghouse" defending trade
marks - claiming you own something when you don't makes Red Hat
smell a little doesn't it?

Red Hat tell us they own the name but do they?

They are not totally off in claiming a trademark for a mark they have
not registered.

Check out:
  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm

Trademarks do not need to be registered although doing so is certainly
advantageous for individuals and corporations in RedHat's position and
with RedHat's goals.  Here's an excerpt:

  Q: Is registration of my mark required?

  A: *No.* You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use
  of the mark. However, owning a federal trademark registration on the
  Principal Register provides several advantages.

  http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38021.htm

 In September if this year, Red Hat applied to the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office for a trademark - to cover its use of "Fedora" in
operating systems and related goods and services.

As the New York Times pointed out yesterday, "Red Hat's Fedora
Project site already treats the name as a trademark and cites legal
guidelines for using the term."

Now the Cornell folks may well have a claim to the mark based on
legitimate use although this may depend on how they've used it (it
sure seems to me like they do to me). I simply don't know the
mechanics and specifics of trademark law well enough to go into detail
on this issue.

It sounds like Fedora is a pretty common name for pieces of software
out there (at least 2 others) and Redhat may need to go back and
choose a more unique name if they want a registered mark with the
added protection.

Since there was some misunderstanding last time, this isn't meant as a
defense of contemporary trademark law or RedHat's actions in this case
-- I have many misgivings with both; I'm just trying to help explain
whats going on here. Understanding trademarks is an important first
step in any critique regardless of the conclusions one reaches.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
                   
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://openflows.org/~auskadi/

"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false, 
which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which 
is a virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something 
that certainly exists or happened." Bishop Otto to Baudolino in Umberto Eco's 
Baudolino.

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01253 Message: 28/49 L12 [In index]
Message 01599 [Homepage] [Navigation]