Does My Butt Look Big In This Pentium?
from the pyrrhic dept
The concept of trademark is often misunderstood (and often abused, too). It's not intended to give a holder complete control over a word or mark, rather it's intended to prevent confusion in the marketplace -- so, for instance, I couldn't start selling a computer operating system called Windows, since it might confuse people into thinking it was that better-known version of Windows. With that in mind, the news that Intel has won a trademark dispute in Indonesia is a little odd, since the company on the other side was making Intel-brand blue jeans. Last we checked, it was pretty obvious that you couldn't power a computer with dungarees, nor could you use a processor for a pair of pants. An Indonesian court initially agreed, but now the country's Supreme Court has cancelled the clothing maker's domestic trademark, in effect shutting down its brand of jeans. Intel, of course, heralds this as some great victory for global intellectual property rights -- but really, it's hard to see how battling some jeans maker in one of the company's minor markets does much for it in the long run. Unless, of course, it's got plans for us all to be rocking Centrino shirts, Rosedale pants and the special Viiv underwear during the fall season.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hooray!
*Hmmm let me just quickly open this here envelope that just arrived in the mail*
Oh noes!!! I's is being sued by Intel(tm)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, wait, those sunglass people did make shoes.
Then what if I called my new electronics company Daewoo? That would be okay, right? Nobody would confuse me with the auto manufacturer or ship builder.
Oh wait, they're the same company.
Then maybe if I called my new drinking water TRUMP. Who would confuse that with a Manhattan real estate firm?
Oh wait...
My point, Carlo, is that in this day and age where businesses cross the lines of marketing everyday, maybe your just missed the point here... Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you get a trademark, you get it for the area of business that the mark is being used in. I would assume that Oakley's trademark covers apparel, and therefore, it would cover shoes and sunglasses.
That's not the same as the situation above.
Then what if I called my new electronics company Daewoo? That would be okay, right? Nobody would confuse me with the auto manufacturer or ship builder.
Again, it's likely the company has marks covering both areas.
Not the same as the situation above.
Then maybe if I called my new drinking water TRUMP. Who would confuse that with a Manhattan real estate firm?
Again, when Trump launched his water offering, it's quite likely he filed a trademark for the use of the name in the water business.
Point is, none of your examples relates to the situation in the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You cannot, with any degree of certainty, tell us that the trademarks for those companies were filed for at the same time as the original.
Daewoo wants to get into the automotive business 15 years after they succeed in electronics, they apply for a new TM. They have marks covering both because they wanted to protect themselves, but it was never in the original plan.
Intel decides now that they want to protect themselves, and in the same way, they reserve a Trademark. This time, though, it's in the apparel industry. Who are you to argue that this is any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can disagree, but you would be wrong. You should look up how trademark law works.
You cannot, with any degree of certainty, tell us that the trademarks for those companies were filed for at the same time as the original.
I never said they were filed at the same time. But you can't trademark a *future* product. You can only trademark a mark you are using in trade. And, when you file it, included in the filing is what the mark is used for and what category of goods it covers. That's simply how trademarks work.
You might not like it, but unfortunately the law is against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The most amusing line being:
You might not like it, but unfortunately the law is against you.
Maybe, rather than fancying yourself as some expert in Trademark law, you could read the article above. In fact, just the bold, blue line would do.
Intel has won a trademark dispute...
Maybe, sir, it is the law that is against you
Come down a minute from Blowhard Mountain, and stop arguing for arguments sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's a court that has made a bad decision. The law is actually pretty clear about it, and for a good reason.
Are you really trying to suggest that by having a brand name in one business, you should automatically retain all rights to it in any other business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if some company like Monsanto started marketing Techdirt(tm), a new soil treatment for farmers using the latest hi-tech nanobots to make your corn grow faster and heartier.
Would you have a problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you have a problem with that?
Nope. Not a problem. Let them go for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AND it was a court in Indonesia, not the US. I imagine that offering an Indonesian Supreme Court judge $1,000 USD to change his decision is a lot more effective than a couple hundred thousand to the equivalent US counterpart.
Lurker, you need to do some research into the Radio Shack vs Bianca's Smut Shack lawsuit. "The Shack" decided that they owned the trademark to every iteration and implementation of "shack" and brought suit against BSS. Radio Shaft lost because of the very things that Mike and everyone else are trying to explain to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off all. Calling BLUE JEAN's, computer chips is just silly.
There is no threat to the computer company who has gone after people for using blue doors on porn sites.
The company is paranoid!
Second of all if you're going to use a company as a example; use someone who doesn't manufacture that produce. Or have anything what so ever to do their market.
Daewoo does auto, trading and ELECTRONICS.
I could see if you use Dairy Queen suing the NFL for selling blizzard shirts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone cool it.
The simple fact is that trademark is governed by local laws. In the US, a mark can only infringe if it is potentially confusing. This is actually governed by state law, but most states are pretty consistent on this. If this case was about a mark in the US, the jeans company would have won.
One minor problem, however. This case took place in Indonesia and applies Indonesian law.
This may come as a shock, but US law and Indonesian law are a little bit different.It is not unusual for other countries to have more restrictive trademark rules. In the UK, for instance, the World Wildlife Fund successfully forced the World Wrestling Federation to stop using the mark WWF. The UK's trademark rules don't take into account potential to confuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Passionate Lurker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/
What is a trademark or service mark?
* A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.
* A service mark is the same as a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet, the terms "trademark" and "mark" refer to both trademarks and service marks.
Do Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents protect the same things?
No. Trademarks, copyrights and patents all differ. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention. For copyright information, go to http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/. For patent information, go to http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intel
Intel being able to sue over somebody else using the word would be like Subway going after New York for the use of the word for their mass transit system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this a surprise?
http://www.research.philips.com/newscenter/archive/2006/060901-lumalive.html
In the proper spirit of Techdirt, I certainly agree it was the wrong execution on behalf of non-jean Intel, but the logical thing to do. Eventually, someone will have to do this for Philips, and want to own the name for it. Perhaps they could have come to a better agreement.
-parsko
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also Does Intel now bear the responsibility for the failures in the Iraq war, you know, because of the bad (fake) intel. I know someone already made this pun I just couldn't resist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]