213660 - trademark protection

Status: NEW

(Marketing :: General, task)

Description

[bart decrem, not checking bugmail]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030715 Mozilla Firebird/0.6
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030715 Mozilla Firebird/0.6

We need to review our trademark policies (if we have any) to ensure that we are
properly protecting those trademarks.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1

[bart decrem, not checking bugmail]

review:
- www.stopzilla.com
- the cafepress store in the US
- the people who sell shirts in Germany
- www.mozillaoncd.com

Comment 2

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

As I understand it, giving permission for people to use our trademark to
advertise our products wold get around most of those cases. (The problem with
trademark violation as I understand it is not protecting it when people breach
it -- if we give explicit permission to people for the cases we don't mind, then
we presumably don't have to defend them.)

People putting our trademark Out There is a good thing for us.

Comment 3

[Andras Muranyi]

Microsoft uses "Mozilla" in its useragent string. Isn't it high value copyright
violation?

Comment 4

[Oleg Sidletskiy]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Microsoft uses "Mozilla" in its useragent string. Isn't it high value copyright
> violation?

I think might be a good answer to your question, don't know if it's true or not
though:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100703&cid=8587285

"Of course, the primary reason why an attempt to sue MS would have failed is
that trademark protection doesn't extend to anything that is hidden from the
user -- the only offences under trademark law are related to attempting to pass
your product off as somebody elses, or otherwise confusing customers so that you
can trade on somebody else's reputation. Thats why 'trade' is in the name.
Because MS weren't openly calling IE 'mozilla', no issue arises."

Comment 5

[Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley]

IMPORTANT:

According to the WWW site of the UK Patent & Trademarks Office, the trademark,
"Firefox", was already registered
<http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2007607> in
the UK in 1997-01-31 (filed in 1995-01-12) in the fields of "Computer software
for use in managed communications and connectivity" and "Computer consultancy
services; licensing and rental of computer software; design and development of
computer software; maintenance, installation and up-dating of computer software;
advisory services relating to computer programs and software".

It is currently registered to the Charlton Group.  Assuming that the Mozilla
Foundation has not bought that trademark from that company, does this not mean
that the Mozilla Foundation does not hold the trademark, "Firefox" in relation
to WWW browsers in the UK.

Comment 6

[Doug Wright]

If you go to Help -> About in Firefox, you will see a line saying something
along the lines 'certain trademark rights used under license from Charlton Group'.

Comment 7

[Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley]

Sorry, I was not aware of that.  Are the MF/Charlton Group making a copy of the
terms of the TM license MF received from the Charlton group available, so that
those in the UK who have been given a TM license by MF can ensure that they are
not (or will not in the future) violate the TM of the Charlton Group?

Also, are their any plans for MF to restrict MF's use of the TM (a guarantee)
and/or reduce restrictions on the TM to others if MF stops developing Firefox?

Comment 8

[MythMan Jay]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Microsoft uses "Mozilla" in its useragent string. Isn't it high value copyright
> violation?

A-hyuck, 'n' my daddy said "Yahoo!" thuh day I'us conceived ... don't that mean
he can sue somebody fer all they're wurth? neyr-neyr neyr neyr neyr neyr neyr
neyr neyrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Really, copyright law (as I understand it) only comes into play where the money
is concerned. And (as far as I can tell ... I use way too many qualifiers) the
only place the 'name-use' matters is on the checks received; and if you get any
for being 'like' another company or 'in the vein of' another group, it's often
likely that you're being paid because you're NOT the original group or company.

But I understand that lawyers and might want to be more secure in their
businesses, and sometimes have to rely upon the names that they put hard work
into. I might need to do that too, but I have to remember that my name needs me
more than I need it ... I know that sounds like a line from any self-affirming
meditation-tape, but I'm pretty sure I can fit it into the matter at hand.

I'll try here: I'm a philosophical writer ... born-and-raised a leather-chewing
Catholic, but stretching to fit more of an "ev'rything's alrite"-mentality ...
and at the top of an article excusing homosexuality for they who participate in
it, I write my name. At the top of an article blessing homosexuality and
encouraging unwashed-young-adults to participate, somebody else (possibly even
using my parenthetical habits of mid-sentence criticism and self-depreciation)
writes my name.

Of course, I'll then write an article CONDEMNING, DISCOURAGING, & INVALIDATING
homosexuality ... reminding readers that it is inconveniant, bad (and not a
'good' bad), and fully against all hopes of the future; and saying that--when I
excused it before--it was like excusing someone for vomiting on an expensive,
new rug (it's okay that it happened, but there wasn't any reason for it to
happen in that place and there won't ever be any reason for it to happen there
again). My name goes to the top of that one too.

Now I might get paid for all of those, but wrongly for the middle one because I
didn't 'do' that one. If I do get paid for that one, and the falsity-writer
wants the money; I'll give/owe it to them. No problem there.

I also understand that, if you 'invested' in a certain name or copyrightable
idea, you want to 'protect' that 'investment.' You entitle a system-or-something
with an 'original' name, you don't want any other system-or-something to portend
that same investment. (Is 'portend' even a word? I dunno, but it sounds like a
good name ... on this SECOND day of FEBRUARY, 2005 LoL.)

But I guess the point is, if you name something, don't get so tied up in the
name that you can't lose the name and remain the same ... hey! I'm a poet and I
know i-- whoa! I'M 'BEND-OVER-BACKWARD-TO-UNWRAP-THE-CANDY-BAR'-AZING! LoL