Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:08:13 -0500 (EST) From: roberthuff@rcn.com To: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Palemoon branding violation Message-ID: <1047833337.52309484.1518181693863.JavaMail.root@rcn.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
@lbutlr writes: > Speaking with some experience it is nearly impossible to enforce > a =E2=84=A2 trademark, especially if there are other trademarks of the > word or phrase or name. If you want to use McDonald=E2=80=99s in your > name for a hardware store you better be sure you get a =C2=AE for it > if you want to defend it, since there is already an established =C2=AE > (more than one, in fact) in place. =09It is my understanding that - in the U.S. - trademarks are: =091) limited by industry. Apple Compuuter and Apple Corps (the Beatles' music label) got along just fine ... until Apple Compuuter started doing stuff with music on computers. More information on what followed is at: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer". =092) limited by geography. Nudnik's Hardware, with one store outside Anchroage, will not be able to enforce trademark against Nudnik's Hardware one store im the U.S. Virgin Islands. McDonald's is obviously the case at the other end of that spectrum. =093) limited by prior usage. A "McDonald's" restaurant which has been in continuous operation in substantially the same location since 1867 may be able tell the other McDonald's to go whistle. =09=09=09Respectfully, =09=09=09=09Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1047833337.52309484.1518181693863.JavaMail.root>