Court Says File Extensions Not Eligible For Trademarks... Sorta
from the but-maybe-not... dept
JohnForDummies points us to the news that the latest attempt to stretch trademark law to ridiculous levels has been sorta maybe rejected -- though it appears to still be open for abuse. The case involved Autodesk and a competitor, Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, who had released some software that was compatible with Autodesk's .dwg files used in AutoCAD. Dassault had apparently reverse engineered the file type (which, by itself, is perfectly legal). Some of Dassault's products (under the Solidworks brand) used "DWG" in the name, and Autodesk, overprotective as always, sued -- claiming that the use of DWG in product names infringed. What happened then goes back and forth a bit, but ends up with a court telling Autodesk that file extension names should not be considered trademarkable:The court found that ownership of file extension designations cannot be appropriated under the Lanham Act -- file extensions are inherently functional, and functional uses cannot be trade-marked. It stated that computer programmers and computer users should be free to designate file extensions as they see fit, without the fear of infringing trade-marks.Of course, it's not all good news. The court did suggest that Autodesk could have gotten away with this by disavowing any use of the mark in functional areas, but had limited it to just product names and such. Autodesk pushed back on this a bit, which resulted in the ruling above. And, actually, the transcript from this part of the court discussion is priceless:
The motions judge further opined that the purpose of the Lanham Act is to target unauthorized use of a trade-mark "in connection with a commercial transaction in which the trade-mark is being used to confuse potential consumers." In contrast, the purpose of file extensions is to indicate to a computer the type of file that is being handled. The court noted that "a computer is not a consumer," and its recognition of a file extension is not "in connection with a commercial transaction." In other words, the computer does not concern itself with the question of who made the file format. Therefore, whether on the grounds that a file extension connotes a "functional use" or a "non-trade-mark use," the court held that a file extension per se is not protectable under US trade-mark law.
In its decision, the court did recognize that computer users may associate a particular file extension with a specific vendor or manufacturer. However, the court found this association only incidental to the primary function of file extensions, namely to identify a file or file type.
THE COURT: I want -- you're skating by something that's very important to me. So I want to get a clear answer. All right? Will you disavow, from here to eternity and for the rest of the universe, that the world has a right to use .dwg as a file extension, and you're not going to try to assert, here or anywhere else, that that use as a file extension violates any law?But, still, all is not well. Before the case actually went to trial, Autodesk and Dassault "settled," with part of the settlement being that Dassault agreed that Autodesk had a legitimate trademark on DWG (of course, Dassault isn't the USPTO or a court, so Dassault's agreement on that point is somewhat meaningless). Also, the article notes that our neighbors up in Canada just allowed Autodesk to register a trademark on DWG. So despite the court's clear concern about Autodesk trying to monopolize DWG, don't be surprised if it keeps trying...
MR. SABRI: Your Honor, it may be the case it violates patent law. We're not addressing that today. I will state --
THE COURT: You will be in trouble if you don't give me -- listen. If you are trying to monopolize .dwg, you and your company are in big trouble.
MR. SABRI: We absolutely are not, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, then disavow it.
MR. SABRI: Autodesk cannot --
THE COURT: You're not disavowing it?
MR. SABRI: I am disavowing it, your Honor. Autodesk cannot state claims against functional uses of .dwg, and the distinction between a word mark DWG and the functional uses I believe will be very clear by this presentation.
THE COURT: I want to hear you say we disavow it.
MR. SABRI: We disavow any claims against functional uses of the .dwg, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
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: dwg, file extension, trademark
Companies: autodesk, solidworks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
8.3
So...that means I can publish an application that uses a .mickeymouse or a .monstercablesucks file extension? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 8.3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, me too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, me too!
On the plus side, I realized my joke wasn't very clever in the meantime. So, you're all spared that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo alert
Are = Our?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo alert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corrrection
should be OUR not ARE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corrrection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can someone please explain how using a file extension could violate patent law?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For example, .jpg is a very specific type of image encoding. The large majority of file types involve very specific methods of data formatting. Those practices would be (assumedly) patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *fluff*
While the encoding methodology might be patentable, any type of file can have ".jpg" smacked onto it, whether it uses said encoding or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *fluff*
Ideally, a file extension should be limited only to the specific file type, but that's a whole other monster entirely.
However, in terms of the patent, anything that goes beyond the file extension alone is patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A method and system for distinguishing those who should pay us money for using a particular file extension from those who should not make use of that file extension.
Claim 1: The present invention teaches that the a file extension can be used to extort money based on . . . .
(You get the idea.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What...no precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.BMP is a specific type of image encoding
.jpg is a specific type of .BMP
"The large majority of file types involve very specific methods of data formatting."
As opposed to the filetypes where you can just mash whichever keys you want and compile as such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future fun...
In preparation for the novel I've just started writing, I did a great deal of research into Digital Philosophy and the work of Rudy Rucker, Edward Fredkin, etc., and the implications on artificial intelligence and the mapping of the human mind and consciousness. Given all of that, it'll be interesting to see how courts react to questions like these if/when a computer can be said to be either self aware or simulate self awareness. Will decisions such as this have to change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
customer loyalty through restriction rather than attraction
As true innovation in the products becomes harder and harder to accomplish each year, the big players have limited new customers to pick up and start going after each other's previous customers.
As the ROI on development declines, funds get diverted to marketing and tactics like this to fund off the effects of the competitor's development and marketing.
Fortunately the judge saw through the flawed legal arguments on both sides and tried to prevent further use of the courtroom for this sort of bickering. (While AutoCAD may be the most popular use of *.dwg recently, the file extension has been in use previously and by tools not related to the MCAD market. It has also been a technical term and abbreviation well before Autodesk itself was a company.)
Unfortunately this does not mean that the companies involved will simply go back to the business of improving their own products or tools. Or that moving MCAD files to the best available tool will become as easy as porting your cell phone number.
It is very hard to estimate how much overall economic productivity is lost with proprietary standards and similar practices, but it is certainly not zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]