AOL

rjo_

http://www.propeller.com/

My theory is that the big boys think that Parallax needs some easy cash[noparse]:)[/noparse]

Paul Baker

Naw, the only way we could go after them is trademark violation. But trademarks are purpose dependent, IOW the same name can be trademarked repeatedly if they are used in different industries. For instance, it is conceivably possible to trademark IBM so long as the logo is not stylized the same way and the trademark is not associated with computers or any other field IBM may be involved in. Basically if it can be shown that the consumer will not confuse the brands, then multiple trademarks can exist. Because of this and the difference between propeller.com and the Propeller (news retrieval service vs a microcontroller), it would be hard to show customer confusion between the two.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer

Parallax, Inc.

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)

A whois query reveals that the domain name was registered in 1995. It would be hard to assert primacy based on a product that was introduced more than ten years later.

-Phil

Oldbitcollector (Jeff)

Then theres that little problem with prior art [noparse]:)[/noparse]

OBC

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
New to the Propeller?

Getting started with the Protoboard? - Propeller Cookbook 1.4
Updates to the Cookbook are now posted to: Propeller.warrantyvoid.us
Got an SD card? - PropDOS
A Living Propeller FAQ - The Propeller Wiki
(Got the Knowledge? Got a Moment? Add something today!)

rjo_

that's the problem with theories... there is always something wrong with them[noparse]:)[/noparse]

Brian L

You all should check out www.nissan.com for the full story on a really pathetic case. A Mr. Nissan, who has been in business since way back when the cars were called Datsun's, is now being sued by the car company for 10 million bucks because he won't give up his domain name. I'm not sure if they expect anyone to actually believe that he is hurting their car company, but they clearly expect to bully him out of his domain name.

hippy

Frightening, especially as the lower courts did believe he was harming Nissan. It takes a certain degree of perseverance and stubbornness to take it all the way to the end, and even then it could mean risking everything. Many people would have thrown in the towel, lost their businesses, home, future and family or thrown themselves off the nearest bridge under such huge pressures.

What's perhaps worse in all this is that the domain name could probably have been bought through diplomatic negotiations; everyone has their price.

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)

There was a famous trademark suit, General Motors vs. Cadillac Marine and Boat Company (1964). The maker of "Cadillac" boats was based in Cadillac, Michigan. They were allowed to keep their trademark, since the company was named after the town it was based in, which was named after a Midwest Indian chief. The court noted, "Since Cadillac is both an historic and geographical term, it is only entitled to very narrow protection." (reference)

Where I live (Washington's Olympic Peninsula), there are numerous businesses containing the name "Olympic" (naturally). When Congress granted the USOC exclusive use of the word "Olympic", these businesses were allowed to continue using the term in their names, subject to certain restrictions. The USOC is particularly vigilant in protecting their mark, sometimes to the point of apparent bullying.

I guess the point is, there's nothing clearcut about trademark law. Programming is way less complicated!

-Phil

Post Edited (Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)) : 3/11/2008 8:56:53 PM GMT