Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying

from the back-it-down dept

Thu, Nov 19th 2009 12:57pm — Mike Masnick

Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having "intel" in their name somewhere -- including a travel agency and a jeans company. Now, before anyone brings it up, yes, as a trademark holder the law requires you to enforce your trademark against infringement, lest it become considered "generic" (such as xerox machines, kleenex tissues, aspirin and other brand names that became generic). But, the key in all of those generic situations was that the use was applied to things that directly competed with the original brand's products. People referred to other tissues as "kleenex" and it stuck. Intel's lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all.

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is LatinIntel.com. Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of "intel" as short for "intelligence." It's common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply "intel." The owners of the site explained this to Intel, and in return were given a boilerplate explanation about trademark law, insisting that since Intel's trademark is so valuable, it still has to stop others from using it -- even if they're in a totally different business, which is an interesting interpretation of trademark law, and one not supported by the courts in most cases.

More importantly, no one is going to look at LatinIntel.com and confuse it for the world's largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can't order a Centrino processor. There's simply no confusion at all. Even worse, it appears that Intel's lawyers dragged out this situation far too long. They first contacted the site back in 2007, and the site's owner responded with a clear explanation of why the name was not infringing. Since then, there have been periodic bursts of contact from different Intel lawyers (it apparently seems to change each time), followed by months of silence, before a new group of lawyers starts pestering the site again. Finally, after more than two years of this back and forth, Intel sued Mexico Watch, even though it's not even close to competitive and any "moron in a hurry" (as the popular trademark test notes) would clearly know the difference between a site about Mexican politics and a company selling microprocessors.

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

Filed Under: bullying, trademark
Companies: intel

28 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 19 Nov 2009 @ 12:42pm

Intel Lawyers
Lawyers may not be as intelligent as a "moron in a hurry".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dink, 19 Nov 2009 @ 1:38pm

Centrino processor
Centrino is not a processor, it's a platform.

http://www.intel.com/Centrino/

Intel do muddy the waters by calling it "Intel® Centrino® 2 Processor Technology", but it is definately more than just the processor.

To be Centrino certified you need an Intel processor, chipset and wireless card. Exactly what hardware you need depends on the version of Centrino. EG, Intel® Centrino® 2 requires a Intel® Core™2 Duo processor or Intel® Core™2 Quad processor, Mobile Intel® 4 Series Express Chipset Family and Intel® WiFi Link 5000 Series.

From http://download.intel.com/products/centrino/316944.pdf.

Sorry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2009 @ 1:41pm

Kleenex is not generic...
While many people continue to use "Kleenex" as a generic term for facial tissues, Kimberly-Clark goes to great lengths to protect the trademark from becoming generic. Kimberly-Clark has written to a number of magazines, newspapers, and authors asking for proper use of Kleenex as a brand name rather than a generic name. Furthermore, you will note that when other manufacturer's of facial tissues advertise, they are quite careful in how they use their trademark. Kleenex is far from generic when it appears in print or media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 19 Nov 2009 @ 1:45pm

I Was Confused
As soon as I heard “Mexico watch”, I thought it sounded like “Microsoft Watch” website, which covers the world’s biggest maker of software for Intel processors. As for “LatinIntel”, I immediately thought of “Latin lovers”, and there are indeed many people who just LOVE Intel and Microsoft.

So I agree, there is definitely a confusing similarity here, and Intel’s lawyers are justified in putting a stop to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Me, 19 Nov 2009 @ 1:51pm

Re: I Was Confused
As soon as I heard “Mexico watch”, I thought it sounded like “Microsoft Watch” website, which covers the world’s biggest maker of software for Intel processors. As for “LatinIntel”, I immediately thought of “Latin lovers”, and there are indeed many people who just LOVE Intel and Microsoft.

So I agree, there is definitely a confusing similarity here, and Intel’s lawyers are justified in putting a stop to it.

I now understand where the MORON part of moron in a hurry comes from...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vyvyan, 19 Nov 2009 @ 1:54pm

Re: I Was Confused
just on hearing, but not when you visited the site?

By your logic, Google owes billions of dollar to utube.com. And people were amazed that where can they place order for 33mm pipes on youtube.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2009 @ 1:59pm

Re: Kleenex is not generic...
Really? Because I'm sitting here reading the generic definition of kleenex in my dictionary while using my kleenexes that aren't from Kimberly-Clark.

Want a kleenex? I hear they kleen well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2009 @ 2:04pm

oh, boy
intel has definitely gotten too big for their own good. they are so desperate to keep attention on them instead of their competition that they actually believe what they do is right.
their processors arent even good enough to warrant their behavior. (not trying to troll by the way)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2009 @ 2:09pm

q: que tiempo hace?

a: intel centrino 2.1Ghz
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 19 Nov 2009 @ 2:16pm

Re: I Was Confused
It's always more fun to omit the sarcasm tags, there's always people who fall for the most obvious ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Wright, 19 Nov 2009 @ 4:19pm

Abundant examples
On the Web site http://www.intelfortheintelligent.com there is a long list of common usages of intel in its generic, public-domain, English-language sense. Intel simply cannot lay claim over an English language word as a mark. Apple Computer and Apple Corps can fight over music until their lawyers buy new Lexus for their kids, but the public can still go to the store and buy sweet tree fruit called ... "apple"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement, 19 Nov 2009 @ 4:34pm

Re: Re: Kleenex is not generic...
Other than Kimberly-Clark, are there any other tissue companies that use the word "kleenex" in their product? I'm not convinced that becoming a so-called generic trademark is necessarily a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2009 @ 5:24pm

Re: Re: Kleenex is not generic...
You will note that "Kleenex" REMAINS a trademarked name for Kleenex brand facial tissues. In order for a name to remain trademarked, the owner has to show that the name has not become generic. Apparently Kimberly-Clark has been able to meet that standard.

Let's try sanity check on definitions:

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Kleenex, we learn that Kleenex is a trademarked name for a facial tissue. Okay, no generic there.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/kleenex, we learn that (shock!) Kleenex is a trademarked name for facial tissues.

From http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/Kleenex we learn that Kleenex is a trademark, used for paper tissue.

That was the first three sites on my Google search. Would you care to point to the dictionary that claims it is generic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2009 @ 5:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Kleenex is not generic...
No, there are none. Since Kleenex is a trademarked name, it would be illegal for them to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reed, 19 Nov 2009 @ 7:36pm

Re: I Was Confused
That was hilarious. Thanks for that :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zcat (profile), 19 Nov 2009 @ 11:23pm

Re: Abundant examples
Yeahbut... there's also a good reason why iTunes is called iTunes and not the Apple Music Store. And Apple Corps could never market a personal computer for the same reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG, 20 Nov 2009 @ 12:04am

Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying..
Anything I had to say about Intel would involve something very negative about their parents and those "blue" friggin mime characters from their commercials. I'll spare everyone from the vulgar Intel bashing, by saying let's just not go there.

Just do what I do.. Use AMD, Nvidia, and VIA processors.

;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 12:05am

Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying..
Anything I had to say about Intel would involve something very negative about their parents and those "blue" friggin mime characters from their commercials. I'll spare everyone from the vulgar Intel bashing, by saying let's just not go there.

Just do what I do.. Use AMD, Nvidia, and VIA processors.

;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moron N Ahurry, 20 Nov 2009 @ 5:59am

Lawyers...
Why would anyone ever think that a lawyer would do ANYTHING that does not directly benefit him/her?

The lawyers are on the payroll of Intel. If they don't do things like this, they can't justify their cushy job on Intel's payroll.

Now, they can say "See, I'm protecting your trademark! See how valuable I am! Without me, people would be confusing you with Latin Intelligence..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griper, 20 Nov 2009 @ 6:27am

Dove soap and Dove chocolate
Even though they both have dove in their names, the similarities end there. I don't know if they had a huge legal battle but when I see ads for the soap I don't get a sudden attack of my choco-fix or vice-versa.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 10:42am

Re: Dove soap and Dove chocolate
Unsure of what your point is. Dove is registered by Lever as a trademark for soap. Dove is also registered by Mars as a trademark for chocoloate. You can register the same name for multiple uses as long as there is no risk of confusion between the marks.

Speaking of confusion, U.S. trademark law was founded on the basis of unfair competition. There are numerous references to sailcloth manufacturers approaching Thomas Jefferson, lobbying him to pass a trademark law to prevent unfair competition from sailcloth manufacturers putting names of competitors on their products.

The trademark act of 1905 replace the "intent to deceive" language of the previous trademark act, related to unfair competition, with "likelihood of consumer confusion," effectively changing the original intent of trademarks in U.S. law.

However, someone finally woke up and realized that though consumer confusion was a potential risk, unfair competition still remained an issue, so the Lanham Act of 1946 restored the original concept of unfair competition, this time spelling it out for those who failed to realize that "intent to deceive" was related first to unfair competition and second to the potential for consumer confusion.

Indeed, the whole "consumer confusion" portion of trademark law, introduced in 1905, effectively exited trademark law after the Dilution Act of 1996, which said that marks could become so famous that any usage of the marks would evoke the name of the famous company. Thus, Disney and Coca-Cola or Coke will never be gracing the name of very many products that are not directly owned or licensed by Disney and Coca-Cola.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2009 @ 5:33pm

Kleenex may have "stuck," but it is not generic...
Per Mike:

"People referred to other tissues as "kleenex" and it stuck."

Well, guess what. Many people refer to copyright infringement as "stealing," and it definitely has stuck, probably by about the same number of people who incorrectly refer to Puffs brand facial tissues as "Kleenex."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2009 @ 8:24am

Re: Kleenex may have "stuck," but it is not generic...
Kleenex is in the "tween" zone. Coke found itself in a similar zone until competitors realized that having Coke become genericized hurt them (for a while any cola was being referred to as "Coke;" no longer). Suddenly, everyone was emphasizing their brand names - including Coke.

Kimberly-Clark and competitors are in the same place. While consumers recognize the difference between Kleenex brand facial tissues and numerous competitors (the reason the trademark exists - it may be mildly generic in common use, but the brand recognition remains one of the strongest in the world, allowing Kimberly-Clark to keep their trademark), consumers have often used "Kleenex" to refer to any facial tissue. Kimberly-Clark and competitors are trying very hard to improve brand recognition to enhance the difference between Kleenex and other brands.

Think about it. The wife asks the husband to get a box of Kleenex at the store. Does the husband buy Scott's facial tissues or Kleenex brand facial tissues? I opt for the Kleenex. She asked for Kleenex, she gets Kleenex brand facial tissues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh Tuynman, 23 Nov 2009 @ 4:45pm

Lawyers, guns, money ... but mainly lawyers
In David-v-Goliath cases like this, Goliath doesn't need to win but rather can just keep paying lawyers to keep the case alive until David goes broke. Unless Mexico Watch can get some support, the word intel will cease to be in the public domain and will become corporate property. It just ain't right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D S, 13 Dec 2009 @ 11:30am

Re: I Was Confused
I hope this was sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D S, 13 Dec 2009 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Dove soap and Dove chocolate
I think you reiterated his point in your first paragraph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2010 @ 3:56pm

43WWRTEEW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cannondale Mountain Bikes, 10 Dec 2010 @ 10:17pm

Re: Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying..
Yeah, much better! aside from it is much cheaper than intel, it has also great quality. Cannondale Mountain Bikes
[ link to this | view in thread ]