Intel Refiles Questionable Trademark Lawsuit Against Newsletter About Latin America

from the seriously? dept

Late last year, we wrote about the latest in an unfortunately long line of overreaching trademark lawsuits filed by Intel. Intel tends to act as if no one else can use the word Intel at all, leading it to get involved in legal disputes with companies in industries about as far away from Intel's business as can be -- including a travel agency and a maker of jeans. The dispute last year, was focused on the small producer of a newsletter about Latin America, which used the domain name LatinIntel.com. There was no way anyone would be confused by this site or think that it was somehow associated with Intel, even using my favorite "moron in a hurry" test.

So, we were happy, earlier this year, to get a report that Intel had dropped the lawsuit. Except... that turned out to not be exactly true. Intel got in touch quickly to insist that they had only dropped it because they planned to refile the lawsuit with much more detail to make their case. What Intel left out was the pretty serious skepticism the judge had expressed concerning their original filing: The key lines here being:

It really is lacking in enough specificity which would demonstrate that there was confusion or that you're even addressing the same markets. I mean, my understanding is that there may be no customer overlap at all in connection with this.

Intel, of course, shot back with the claim that this has nothing to do with likelihood of confusion, but it was really about dilution. Dilution is a more recent element of trademark law, which was not considered applicable for quite some time, but today has become more widely accepted, and keeps expanding in dangerous ways. It simply goes against the basic concept of trademark law -- which is supposed to be about protecting consumers from buying a product that is falsely labeled. That's why trademark law is limited to the areas where your trademark is actually being used in commerce. The judge's point that there is no customer overlap should be all that matters here. At that point there is no trademark issue. At all.

But Intel has, in fact, now refiled the lawsuit, and tries to get around this claim by pointing out that both Intel and this newsletter have customers that are Fortune 500 companies. Seriously. And then it still claims there is customer confusion, despite the judge making it pretty clear that he didn't believe there was any customer confusion at all:

I asked the spokesperson from Intel who had contacted us about the last post if he could offer an explanation of why it made sense for Intel to continue to pursue this lawsuit, and I got back the basic explanation for why dilution is considered trademark infringement -- which didn't answer the question I was asking. But it appears that Intel's definition of dilution goes way beyond even the current (already troubling) concept of dilution in trademark law. The way Intel sets it up, no one can use the word "intel" even if it's already a widely generic term in a totally different industry (as is the case with the newsletter). That makes no sense.

While I'm sure Intel's lawyers would claim that they have to defend their trademark to avoid it being declared generic, that's also a misrepresentation of trademark law. You do have to defend, but only in cases where there's actual confusion or actual risk of dilution. Someone doing business with a term that is generic in that industry, which is about as far away from Intel's industry as is possible, is not doing any harm, whatsoever, to Intel's mark. Intel should have just dropped the case and left it alone.

Filed Under: confusion, dilution, trademark
Companies: intel, latintel

Fixing Trademark Law

from the is-it-time? dept

Over at the Citizen Media Law Project, Kimberley Isbell, is discussing an article she recently wrote on how to fix trademark law, which is a worthwhile read. The article mainly focuses on "ambiguities" found in trademark law, with the idea of settling some of the issues and making the guidelines more complete. Specifically, she hopes for a more clear delineation of what "fair use" means in trademark law, a better understanding of what defines "use in commerce," and adding a "safe harbor" to cover trademark, since it's the loophole that's left out from the current DMCA and CDA safe harbors that protect third parties from liability online in other issues (such as copyright and defamation).

On the whole, I think it's a good discussion, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. While initially codifying fair use within trademark law sounds like a good idea, my recent conversation with William Patry may have changed my mind on that topic. He pointed out that codifying fair use in copyright law ended up doing more to narrowly limit how fair use was applied, rather than allow judges to make a more expansive and reasonable view of what constitutes fair use. He pointed to the writings of Pierre Leval on fair use, which should be required reading for anyone looking to understand fair use. Given an attempt to codify fair use in trademark law, we might end up with the same set of limitations. While having more clearly defined lines may seem like a good idea, it also provides less flexibility, and more of an opportunity to fence in fair use, rather than letting it adapt as necessary.

On the second suggestion, concerning "use in commerce," we agree that current definitions are all over the map, but again, I wonder if trying to codify it via Congress leads to more problems than solutions. Any attempt will almost certainly screw up unique cases, leading to trouble down the road. Finally, I do absolutely agree on a safe harbor need in trademark, especially as those looking to bring copyright and defamation lawsuits have recently been bending over backwards to sneak in a trademark claim as well to try to avoid the other safe harbors.

As for the improving trademark law in other ways, I would think that the best way to do so, would be to ditch the (relatively) recent concept of "dilution" as trademark infringement, and focus on the real purpose of trademark law: to prevent consumer confusion and "passing off" of one good as made by someone else. As such, I've long been a big proponent of the "moron in a hurry" test that actually has been used in some cases (i.e., "would a moron in a hurry confuse this product and believe it was made by or endorsed by the trademark holder"). Focusing on just that test as a determination of trademark infringement would likely solve many of the common problems with trademark law -- including, most likely, removing the need for either a codified fair use of "use in commerce" clause. Instead, you just apply the moron in a hurry test and toss those lawsuits that wouldn't confuse said morons.

Filed Under: dilution, fair use, safe harbors, trademark law, use in commerce

Craigslist's Response To eBay: We Had To Do It!

from the well,-that's-one-way-to-think-about-it dept

After eBay sued Craigslist, Craigslist's initial responses were rather weak. eBay made a pretty strong case arguing that Craigslist's board had unilaterally diluted eBay's shares -- which seems pretty questionable. Craigslist initially shot back by accusing eBay of doing the same things eBay was accusing Craigslist of doing -- but that was somewhat misleading. eBay wasn't complaining about the specific actions Craigslist was taking -- but the fact that they had done so unilaterally, despite eBay's ownership stake and board position. Then, Craigslist countersued eBay with a laundry list of charges that effectively amounted to "we don't like them being on our board." Both of these responses were a bit disappointing. While I like Craigslist, and respect Craig and Jim, they still hadn't explained why it was legal for them to unilaterally dilute eBay's shares.

The company has now, finally, filed a response to the lawsuit, which effectively seems to say "we had no choice, since eBay being on our board was such a problem." Basically, the argument is that, as board members, they needed to do what was in the best interests of the company -- and that meant getting eBay off the board through any means possible. Unfortunately, that's still just not convincing. It's an "ends justify the means" argument, which seems very un-Craigslist-like. As much as it may be true that eBay being on the board was a problem, that still doesn't allow existing shareholders to unilaterally change the ownership structure of the company. Maybe there's more to this, but so far, it's hard to see how Craigslist wins this in court.

Filed Under: court cases, dilution, ownership
Companies: craigslist, ebay

Craigslist Countersues eBay... But Still Doesn't Answer Questions About Diluting eBay

from the almost,-but-not-quite dept

I'm generally a fan of Craigslist, and think that people all too often blame the company for things it didn't do. However, I'm still having trouble understanding Craigslist's position in the legal battle it's now having with eBay. After getting sued by eBay for unilaterally changing eBay's ownership percentage, Craigslist has now countersued eBay for a laundry list of things, including: "unlawful and unfair competition, misappropriation of proprietary information, deceptive passing-off, business interference, false advertising, phishing attacks, free-riding, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and breaches of fiduciary duty." That's quite a list, but it doesn't respond to the key point of eBay's lawsuit: did Craigslist break the law in changing eBay's ownership percentage? As Rob Hyndman points out, it really appears that Craigslist is now trying to "accomplish by litigation what it failed to accomplish by business planning and sensible precautions among co-founders when it first issued shares, and by negotiation with eBay when it acquired its interest."

As for the specific charges filed by Craigslist, it claims that eBay tried to put Kijiji execs on its board (which contradicts what eBay has said). Also, it claims that eBay has bought keyword advertising on sites like Google that were misleading, appearing to look like they came from Craigslist, when they really pointed to eBay or Kijiji. That certainly could be a trademark violation, if true, but hardly excuses the behavior of Craigslist's board in diluting eBay's shares. You can certainly see where Craigslist is coming from, and why it's quite uncomfortable with the relationship with eBay -- but the company now seems to be throwing the kitchen sink at eBay, dredging up any kind of complaint it can, without dealing with that core issue of how it diluted eBay's shares. That only lends more credence to the idea that Craigslist knows what it did was wrong, and is now throwing out all sorts of other complaints to distract from that. It's like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, who responds by pointing out that his mother who caught him ran a red light when driving home. It may be true, but it's totally unrelated and doesn't excuse grabbing the cookie.

Filed Under: dilution, fiscal responsibility, lawsuit
Companies: craigslist, ebay

eBay Sues Craigslist, As Craig And Jim Dilute eBay's Share

from the call-in-customer-service dept

You may recall that eBay was able to buy approximately one quarter of Craigslist back in 2004. The details of what happened were never made entirely clear (and there are some conflicting stories about those details), but it appeared that the two companies co-existed somewhat peacefully for a while, despite eBay's decision to basically create a Craigslist competitor in Kijiji. However, now things are getting more interesting. Apparently, back in January, Craigslist did something to dilute eBay's share, which eBay now feels was illegal. The company has now sued Craigslist over the matter, though most of the details are hidden, as the lawsuit was filed under seal. Given that Kijiji finally expanded into the US last year (just as Craigslist continued to expand internationally), it's no surprise that Craigslist would seek to decrease eBay's stake in the company. Either way, the perhaps already awkward linkage between Craigslist and eBay seems to be getting even more uncomfortable.

Filed Under: craigslist, dilution, kijiji, ownership
Companies: craigslist, ebay