Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government The Courts News

Handling Accusations of Trademark Infringement? 108

Posted by Cliff from the fighting-about-words-with-more-words dept.
Dredd2Kad asks: "Recently I've been accused of trademark infringement because of something in the metadata of my website. What are my rights? Should I stand and fight or let it go? Part of me doesn't care, because my website is nothing but a special interest group, the other part of me is mad as hell that someone has come to my place and threatened me. I feel the plaintiff chose to trademark something really generic (HardRadio), and my choice of metadata (hard radio) should be allowed some wiggle room, especially since I'm not a commercial entity like they are. Please read my story and let me know what you think. I know someone out there must have had a similar problem." In addition to seeking professional legal advice, what other steps can one take to handle these problems?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Handling Accusations of Trademark Infringement? More

Handling Accusations of Trademark Infringement?

Comments Filter:

  • slashdot (Score:4, Funny)

    by Finuvir ( 596566 ) <rparle.soylentred@net> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:31PM (#8797231) Homepage
    Get you page slashdotted -> problem solved

  • In addition to seeking professional legal advice, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Feztaa ( 633745 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:35PM (#8797276) Homepage
    Step One. Seek professional legal advice.
    Step Two. Disregard all advice that you might get on slashdot, with the exception of the people who tell you to:
    Step Three. Seek professional legal advice.
    • I would qualify that with two points:
      Seek GOOD legal advice, i.e. from someone who deals with these types of issues; and

      If you can't afford good legal advice (it is going to be expensive) then if you can avoid this whole issue by simply changing your website that would be much simpler and MUCH MUCH less expensive.

      Principles are good, but litigation is EXTREMELY expensive and a huge pain so it is best to avoid it at all costs if you can......

  • play with grammer. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Johnathon_Dough ( 719310 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:37PM (#8797312)
    "It's not hard, Radio is easy to use."
  • Really, you are probably better off just pulling the tags for now - they are obviously a company with a bit of an ego. There doesn't seem to be any value (you yourself mention that having it in the meta tags has no effect on the site at all). This is just not worth putting up the fight.

    While I do see it as a hot-headed company bent on protecting their so-called "IP", and there is certainly merit in standing up for what seems like a silly dispute. I think it best to just lay down your weapons and call for a

    • Of course you could pull a Dave Barry and post contact information for Tracy Barnes, thus leveraging the might of slashdot against him.

      Another idea is to get this story on as many blogs as possible. That way searches for "hard radio" pull up the story of some lawyer beating up on a "public access", not for profit, little-guy website.

      Paybacks....

      Of course, I'm not sure how you pull this kind of attention back when hardradio.com lawyers back off.... Well they did bring it on themselves.

    • The company that I work for got one of those "letters" via email once over our metadata. The guy claimed that they had a trademark on the term "Safety Software". I looked it up and he did in fact have the trademark. I turned it over to the Vice President of the company and that was the last time I had heard about it. The phrase is no longer in our metadata, but I have no idea if this guy's letter had anything to do with it.

      The VP thought it was rather funny that this guy got a trademark on something t

  • Make it obvious that your metadata is not intended to infringe on the HardRadio trademark by changing it.

    Change "hard radio" to "hard radio (Important note: hard radio is not intended to infringe on the trademark HardRadio)"

    That should make your intent perfectly clear.
    • In your metadata, put "HardRadio is a TM of bla bla bla, Inc.". That's really all you need to do. You'll find that all the time in magazine ads that reference other companies products.

      • At the bottom of the page with the metatag, wirte in smallest possible font something like: "Disclaimer: All rights of the herein mentioned trademarks are the legal property of their trademark owner" - in light grey or something.
  • It's unlikely that they will really sue you. Just saying a phrase doesn't constitute trademark infringement. Since you're not a commercial site, you're not really engaging in trade. The cost of suing you, given the fact that the case is hardly slam and dunk, would certainly outweigh the benefit -- especially since, if you're sued, the phrase "hard radio" will be google-immortalized to your page from all of the bad press they'll get. (The final irony!) I say, make sure you don't spend any money on it, and wa
    • Hmm.

      I actually kind of think you are in the wrong WRT embed bits being a protection mechanism under the DMCA.

      I honestly think that the real problem is the over-broad DMCA.

      I kind of wish that the EFF had been able to take this one to court...the ridiculousness of the argument would have been a good argument against the DMCA.
    • CMU, eh?
      The CMU with DST?
      And a DMCA threat?

      Hahah, Monotype/AGFA can't have the brains they were born with!

      It's good to see your story, in particular with the little guy and his voice of common sense.

      FightForRock is one of my favourite radio stations (Snakenet Metal Radio being my preference for harder stuff, and Aural Moon for progressive stuff). I'd like to see FightForRock make a stand too.

      Rockers being bullied by lawyers. NO IT JUST ISN'T RIGHT!
      Bike chains for coshes and a rendez-vous in the fucking
  • the commercial and personal domain spaces should be completely separate.

    Companies get to do whatever companies do in the commercial space, and have no rights in the personal space, and vice versa.

    Don't mod me down - insult my intelligence instead! Come on, you know you want to.
    • Now *that* is a reasonable and sensible idea, and one that I wish people would follow.

      If .co.us could *only* be used by companies with registered trademarks in the US, and everyone moved over there, and standard trademark resolution rules applied to that space, no problems come up.

      Of course, it wouldn't solve this problem...

  • Meta data is dead (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:42PM (#8797368)
    Google gives it almost no weight (descriptions get a little bit of weight, but keywords almost none), and neither does any other modern search engine. It was just too easy to abuse, so they rightly dropped the idea. I'm not saying you necessarily need to give up your fight, but you're fighting over an antiquated piece of search optimization.

  • Simple really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Cow herd ( 2036 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:42PM (#8797373) Homepage

    This should be pretty easy to fight. The company HardRadio(tm) doesn't own trademarks on the words "hard" or "radio", but on the single term "hardradio". Alternatively, would they drop the suit if you changed your metadata to "radio hard"?

    Having said that, I didn't say it'd be quick or inexpensive to fight. :-)

    • Re:Simple really (Score:4, Informative)

      by DukeyToo ( 681226 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:54PM (#8797496) Homepage
      IANAL, but unless it is a registered trademark (R), it is not really something they can enforce. Certainly, they cannot do anything about you using 2 separate words when their (TM) is on the combined words. It would be thrown out of court in minutes.

      When a company wants to change their (TM) to an (R), they have to go through a registration process, part of which involves checking for existing uses of the term. Should there be too many instances of the term that are prior to their own, then it becomes more difficult for them to acquire the (R). It is my guess that they are going through the registration process, and are trying to smooth the way as much as possible.

      Ignore them if you want, change it if you want. Legally, you're safe. Again, IANAL, so my advice is legally worthless.

      • Re:Simple really (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sir_cello ( 634395 )
        Yes, you are not a lawyer and that's why your advice is wrong and legally worthless, why did you even decide to give a response, you're just wasting everyone's time? Even if it is not a registered trademark, there are provisions on unfair competition and passing off.
        • Cello,

          Blow me. My advice is just as good as anyone elses in this forum, certainly better than some abstract phrase like "unfair competition and passing off".

          I was having a good day before I met you. Asshole.
      • Unfortunately, trademarks are fuzzy.
        If your phrase looks _somewhat like_ their trademark, then you could be infringing.
        Of course, if your phrase doesn't cause an average person to confuse it with their product or service, then you're in the clear.

        HardRadio should never have been granted a trademark, IMHO, as it's simply an adjective and a noun that would naturally (as FfR have seen) be seen together.

        OCI2ANAL.

        YAW.

  • Donald Trump said it best... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KingOfBLASH ( 620432 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:44PM (#8797390) Journal
    Donald Trump said in his first book, The Art of the Deal, that if you don't stand and fight when someone wrongs you, you will be seen as weak, and the vultures will have no problems trying to screw you over and over again. I firmly believe that -- and, hey, a guy worth billions is worth listening to, IMHO.
    • That's also a guy who owns a chain of casinos that are about to go bankrupt -- he's at the point where he can give up all control to get bailed out, or let them go under.

      There are many of us who see no reason to listen to someone just because of net worth. Many of us judge people by deeper things than dollars.

      As to fighting or not fighting -- some of the bravest people I've ever read about or known are those strong enough to NOT fight. (People like the Quakers who ran the Underground Railroad, or Ghandi

      • That's also a guy who owns a chain of casinos that are about to go bankrupt -- he's at the point where he can give up all control to get bailed out, or let them go under.

        It is important to remember that bankruptcy is not an end all in the business world, but a tool. Donald Trump has a history of playing hard ball with his bond holders by threatening bankruptcy; bonds in Atlantic city go for four times the interest rates of bonds (mortgages) for properties in New York City. Add to that the fact that t

        • It's not his statement that the casino's are in trouble, and he's not the one making noise about it. Others invovled are worried about what to do.

          On the other hand, it's probably important to point out nobody really knows just how much of his net worth is tied up with the casinos. It could be as small as 1% or as big as over 50% -- the info isn't public, so we don't know.
          • He owns a little over 50% of the company because he IPOed it. Considering the stock prices, it's probably not a large percentage of his net worth. But, walking around New York City and seeing lots of big (and expensive) buildings with TRUMP in big, gold, letters, makes me think he's got enough to last out whatever troubles turn up. Not to mention the fact that Trump tower alone was valued at over a billion dollars recently.
    • if you don't stand and fight when someone wrongs you, you will be seen as weak,

      This only applies when you will be seen being weak. If Microsoft backed down on the Lindows thing, everybody would see them being weak and your aphorism would be in full force. If FFR backed down without a peep, nobody would ever notice and nobody would really see them as a weakling. (And a trademark issue doesn't imply that the currently aggreived party will have any interest in following up on the perceived weakness, either.)
    • What does that have to do with anything? It's not like he's running a business where someone's trying to get to his assets?

      You Americans have got to stop worshipping false gods.

      (Boy, do I look forward to getting flamed)

  • Cost Them Money (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Euphonious Coward ( 189818 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:46PM (#8797404)
    For every message their lawyer sends, ask questions that will take lots of time. Stall, ask for further explanations, examples. The client gets billed for it all at extortionate rates. While it enriches the lawyers inequitably, it also makes the client less inclined to keep pursuing the matter when it's just something stupid.

    Ask for proof that they have registered "hard radio" in addition to the one-word bumpycaps "HardRadio". Ask for proof that in addition to "HardRadio" they registered "hardradio". Ask if they are claiming the words "hard" and "radio" individually. Ask if they are claiming "radio hard". Use your imagination.

    • Use your imagination.

      Idiot: he might end up with an expensive civil suit if he took your advice, the guy needs to speak to someone who has a clue about trademarks, and preferably someone with legal training. Honestly, these type of questions are similar to "I've noticed small lumps around my testicles, what do I do?" - the answer is that there's a lot of your time, effort and money riding on the answer: you go straight to professional advice. If you can't afford professional advice, well just ride the r

    • Ask for proof that in addition to "HardRadio" they registered "hardradio".

      Easy. Registrations for word marks at the USPTO are case insensitive. At least they all seem to be stored in databases upcased. Thus, the mark would be listed as HARDRADIO. You can verify this by going to TESS [uspto.gov] and doing a search for word mark linux; the results will contain LINUX.

  • They're only doing what they have to... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:46PM (#8797407)
    Ever heard of a brand called Asprin? They didn't protect their trademark, now it's generic and they've lost it. When I used to read Writer's Digest, I saw ads from Chrysler (who owns Jeep) specifying that Jeep was a vehicle made by a specific company, and asked (paraphrased), "When you're writing, remember, it's not a Jeep unless it's made by Jeep." (As opposed to calling a Suziki Samuri a jeep -- small j.)

    Companies have to do this. They have to prove they are aggressively defending their trademark, or they could lose it. That's happend with a number of companies. Another example -- Xerox. In many offices people say, "Please xerox this." (Note small X at start of word). This could lead to xerox, as a word, meaning to make a copy. If it continues, Xerox would lose the trademark for their name, which could hurt them. After they've spent years and millions building up brand recognition, if the name is considered generic, any company could come in and capitalize on the benefit of the name.

    Contrary to what some people are saying, this does not mean a company has a big ego -- they're just doing what they need to do, and it is even possible it is automated so there may not be any human even aware of your situation.

    You could just change the tags, which would be easiest, or you could even write a response, explain that you are using the two words (instead of one combined word), and you might even ask if you could have permission to continue to use these words in this fashion.

    I know it's frustrating, makes you feel violated, and seems pigheaded, but they're just doing what they have to in order to protect their investment. Don't blame them.
    • Funny, in U.S. law verbs can't be trademarked.

      Therefore, you can write about "xeroxing", "googling", "windsurfing", "jetskiing", etc., and there's nothing Xerox or Google etc. can do but whine.

    • Ever heard of a brand called Asprin? They didn't protect their trademark, now it's generic and they've lost it.

      No. The German chemical firm Bayer lost their trademarks and patents on aspirin and heroin per the Treaty of Versailles; they were surrendered as reparations for World War I. See http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blasp irin.htm [about.com] or just search for aspirin and versailles on google.

      To the best of my knowledge, no company in recent memory has lost a trademark due to dilution from gene

      • Actually, it's only in the US that "aspirin" is a generic term. In many other countries in the world (including Canada), "Aspirin" is still a registered trademark of Bayer. Of course, Bayer's patents have long since expired, and so anyone can manufacture and sell acetylsalicylic acid, but they can't call it "aspirin."

      • I haven't done the research (yet, but I will) but isn't this what happened to "Vice-Grip" brand tools? Didn't vice-grip become a generic term for "locking pliers"?

        I will do the research, and I will return tomorrow ;-)

      • To the best of my knowledge, no company in recent memory has lost a trademark due to dilution from generic usage. Not Xerox, not Kimberly-Clark (makers of Kleenex brand facial tissues), not Johnson & Johnson (makers of Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages).

        Your knowledge is incomplete. They may not all necessarily fit your definition of "modern" but refrigerator, escalator, cellophane, shredded wheat, thermos, yo-yo, murphy bed, and nylon are terms which have lost some or all of their trademark protectio

    • Bayor lost the trademark on Asprin due to germany losing WWII.

  • It still baffles me that anyone can claim rights to a word or phrase that they didn't make up on their own. I say fight it to the best of your ability, and fight with knowledge, for knowledge truly is power. Those jackasses think they can squander on anyone who puts two words together and write threatening letters... just say the word, and I'll send my army of ninja warriors to teach them a lesson!!

  • His letter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by silicon not in the v ( 669585 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @05:56PM (#8797546) Journal
    Did you read the letter he sent to them? For one thing, using the phrase, "Fight For Rock isn't even a pimple on your ass" isn't exactly the best way to present yourself as a respectful person interested in calm negotiation.
    Also, I found this comment funny, "So I've decided to contact some legal experts and do some research so I can know exactly what my rights are." All right! I've always wanted to be a legal expert.
    There are several other glaring grammatical issues in there too. I find this one of the worst things he could have done. Why in the world would you fire off an angry, inflammatory letter to them and then seek legal advice?
    • I agree with you here. His response probably didn't do his cause any good. It wasn't professional and it really didn't carry any weight (except for what could be perceived as a veiled legal threat). He probably should have simply sent an email saying he was discussing this issue with his attorney and would get back to them in a few days.

      That said, we should also remember that FFR isn't a commercial website with a corporation behind it. This guy does the site, and foots the bill, because he loves the music.

    • Hey there...ya I know my response was stupid. But it was fueled by me needing to get to work that morning and lots of anger. It shouldn't have been rushed or angry..but hey..I'm only human.

      Anyway, HardRadio and I worked it out.

  • IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bistronaut ( 267467 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#8797592) Homepage Journal
    The funny thing about trademark law is that you can loose your trademark if you don't send out threatening letters like our FightForRock admin got. Combine this with a company that has a trademark that is very close to a generic term (and generic terms are not trademarkable) and you get a legal department that is pretty much forced to by hyper-paranoid about trademarks. This leads to a sort of little-big-man syndrome, where the company acts like it thinks everyone is picking on it. So HardRadio has a chip on it's shoulder. FightForRock accidentally stepped on their shoes, and now HardRadio has been forced into a legal pissing contest. What do you do when the short guy gets all pissy at you for no good reason? You can either kick his scrawny ass (which is usually more trouble than it's worth) or you can smile and apologise for whatever minor thing set him off and be on your way. Those are pretty much FightForRock's options. I don't see that HardRadio really has a case, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth to kick their asses in court. ------- P.S. This post was designed specifically to propogate negative stereotypes about short people. Tall Power!
  • While I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert in trademark law, I don't think their complaint about using "Hard Radio" in a generic sense has any substance to it at all.

    Perhaps, instead of going after FightForRock.com who, admittedly, is making no money for them to get, they should start searching the web for all the big "Hard Radio" stations out there and sue them for trademark infringement. I know of two in my area alone that use the term Hard Radio all the time in both ads and print media.

    My ad

  • What about these guys? [talkhardradio.com]

    Maybe you can sic them on each other...

    ;-)

  • Back down (Score:3, Informative)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:03PM (#8797635) Journal
    Sadly you're probably in the wrong. [unc.edu]

    I think that the courts have ruled incorrectly on metatagging, but there's not a lot we can do about stupid judges.
    • I doubt that FightForRock is in competition with HardRock. I also doubt that they copied all of Hard Rock's meta data (that might be bad news if he did).

      His letter is a bit off-the-cuff, but it's also reasonably respectful. He essentially said "this is silly -- I Think I'm in the right, hard rock is a generic phrase (very generic in my world) and I reserve the right to put it back if you're out to lunch on this.

      Now, most lawyers will tell you that it's a bad idea to talk to lawyers without lawyers of yo

  • Change it to "die hard radio" and tell them to get smarter customers.

    Or... change it to "hard radio sucks" and claim first ammendment rights to expressing an opinion.

    In short, the sky is the limit to the number of ways to screw with them.
  • For example, start with the U. S. Patent and Trademark website [uspto.gov], where you may find your way to this page [uspto.gov]. Use their search feature, and read up on what, precisely, is trademarked:
    • G & S: production of audio programming and distribution to listeners via cable, satellite or global computer network
    • G & S: computerized on-line ordering services in the field of music

    and

    • G & S: Computer services, namely broadcasting music and music information via an electronic computer network

    You get into trou

  • What HardRadio(tm) is saying.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by CaptainTux ( 658655 ) <papillion@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:15PM (#8797760) Homepage Journal
    I see a lot of people here saying "mess with their heads: ask if they own X". You are totally missing the point of what HardRadio(tm) is saying.

    They are no longer claiming trademark infringement. They are claiming trademark confusion and dilloution(sp). It's the exact same thing that Microsoft(tm) is doing with Lindows. They aren't really saying Lindows is infringing on the Microsoft Windows(tm) trademark but rather that they are creating brand confusion.

    So even though FFR might not actually be infringing on the HardRadio(tm) trademark, they might still be ruled against because they are creating brand confusion. Asking questions to the lawyers as suggested wouldn't tie the lawyers. It would just show that he has no idea what he's doing.

    • Yeah, but then they have to drag up an example of a customers that was confused.

      The other problem is that it's entirely legitimate to say "better than HardRadio" on his page, since then he clearly isn't claiming that his product is HardRadio (it's using the term in a descriptive sense), but it does drive the same traffic to you (and drives the HardRadio people bananas, which I'm sensing is an underlying goal).
    • They are no longer claiming trademark infringement. They are claiming trademark confusion and dilloution(sp)

      Dilution is only for famous marks, and I don't think they're claiming that HardRadio is famous or that they would be successful with such an argument.
    • ...they might still be ruled against because they are creating brand confusion.

      How, exactly, is he creating brand confusion if the text never appears in a place that human beings would read? How can it cause confusion if it just a depreciated tag for machines? How can a branch of law ostensibly setup to allow a purchaser to know when something comes from one company rather than another be applied in a situation where the purchaser never sees the mark?

      Don't get me wrong, I think the guy should cave imme
  • Change "hardradio" to "hard radio" in your meta data.

    Compose a clearly written letter telling the infringed to fuck themselves.

    Keep checking Slashdot for advice, on all topics.

    ROCK ON DUDE!!!
    • You missed the 2nd notice:

      Trademark Infringement Notice #2

      Brandon,

      You are still using the words "hard radio" together in your meta tags. Under trademark law, this will cuase trademark confusion and dilution of our registered and established marks.

      Please remove "hard radio" from your meta tags immediately.

      Tracy Barnes
      • Doesn't H***Radio need to prove trademark confusion, as in intent to confuse, mislead customer complaints or business lost to the accused before arguing that such confusion exist? Microsoft couldn't really argue that a company renovating houses could not refer to a windows update as part of their business would be confusing, could they?

        == MS Windows should really be MS Shutters because you can't see through them ==

  • My advice (Score:3, Informative)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:22PM (#8797830) Journal
    Many search engines (I think) treat commas and spaces in meta keywords the same, as many sites are inconsistent in whether they use commas or spaces to delimit single words. Repeated words can actually hurt your ranking. So taking out "hard radio" may actually have a positive effect on your search ranking since those words appear elsewhere. It's very unlikely that they'd take action against you at that point.

    I agree that they are acting like assholes though. Most infringers worth worrying about are a lot more blatant. The company I work for encountered a website with our company's name and the names of several competitors in a hidden list (white on white), with insults for each that would only show up in search results. We didn't take legal action, but we did email them and email a link the dozen or so of our competitors who were also infringed upon. Got a long winded apology and the list was removed.
  • Try changing the order of the keywords in the META tag. It might be harder if you use "radio hard", or if there are other keywords try "hard radio".

    Or you could just drop the keywords.
  • I got a nastygram from one of my competitor's lawyers for using their client's trademark as a metatag. They advised that in Brookfield Communications, Inc. V. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999), a jury awarded Brookfield Communications excess of $1,000,000 for a metatag infringement.

    So yes, at least in the 9th Circuit Court jurisdiction, you have a problem.

    I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

  • When the revolution comes the lawyers will be the first against the wall
    • I thought that was the mimes... And before the mimes, I thought it was the Jehovas... and before the Jehovas, I thought... [etc]
      • no Mimes go in the Scorpian Pit (with "Learn the Words" painted on it's wall) !

        the organised religions and law makers follow the lawyers !

        and then the marketing division of the sirrus cybernetics Corperation ...

        but lawyers first
        • I'd forgotten about Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, of course.

          Yes.

          That is the order of things.

          "Learn the words" is, as far as I recall, actually a real-life quote from the darker side of Catholic history... :O
  • Why are you so particularly attached to having those words in the metadata? Search engines don't look at that shit anymore, they have gotten more sophisticated. Unless you feel like spending $$$ on lawyers to affirm your right to having that stuff in your metadata, just remove it. It's a lose-lose situation, so minimize your losses.

    • I agree. Espically since the metadata does not matter anymore, just put this jerk's nastygram in there. For increased pleasure make sure that you strip out any other TM'd phrases or words so they can't tell you to remove the letter's text.

      What Tracy Impotent Jerk [hardradio.com] Barnes doesn't realize is that modern search engines use links like hardrock [fightforrock.com] to figure out relivance. So a few links could start moving your website above their website for the "hardrock" search term without you changeing a single metatag on y

  • If he's stupid enough to ask slashdot for legal advice, maybe we should tell him *NOT* to get a laywer, then sit back and laugh. (pass the popcorn plz)
    • I wasn't really looking for legal advice, I was looking to see how people that have been in these situations have reacted.
  • Run like hell and don't look back...

    Joking.

    You should look back occasionally. You never know when Darl's running after you with a brick waving a license contract.
  • "hard radio" is not the same as "hardradio" and you are not causing them any monetary loss. you are not a company.

    no one can stop you using a metatag. trademarked or not it bears no direct relation. Putting "microsoft" in your meta tag is not illegal is it? i bet you could find thousands of sites with microsoft information on them that have "microsoft" in their metatags.

    at the core of it they have to prove you are taking profit from them, which basically becomes impossible if you are not actually getting
  • Note: Any place in this discussion where you find someone saying that HardRadio or their lawyers are just mean, spiteful people, insert "I am not a lawyer, and in fact no almost nothing about trademark law."

    U.S. trademark law pretty much requires the owners of trademarks to bitch and whine about people who might be weakening those trademarks, or they'll lose them. Those laws may very well be a conspiracy involving the Intellectual Property Law industry to ensure more work for them, but nonetheless that's

  • Some time in the last century (shortly after PCs had been invented), we created an estate agency software package called Monopoly. PC User published a review of it and illustrated it with a photograph of a certain property trading board game.

    We got a letter from Waddingtons' lawyers. We wrote back to them saying that (a) we were not using "Monopoly" as the name of a game; (b) we were not implying endorsement by Waddingtons or association with their game; (c) we were not mentioning their game in any way in

  • Hey everyone!

    Thanks for the practical advice and...*ahem*..impractical advice.

    Parts of this thread made me laugh and others made me think

    Since last night HardRadio and I have reconsiled are differences. But to give you a little history, since I took down the page I wanted all of you to read..

    I do respect their right to the trakemark of HardRadio and it is wrong for someone to go out and try to gain market share off of their trademarks...not that is what I was trying to do.

    What got me raging mad wa
  • Publicity seems to be the most important approach, besides good and specialized (read expensive) lawyers. Also you may learn from these trademark cases against Open Source projects [tuxmobil.org] and from the history of my personal trademark infringement Obelix./.MobiliX [tuxmobil.org] against my former project MobiliX, which is now named TuxMobil - Linux On Laptops, Notebooks, PDAs and Mobile Cellular Phones [tuxmobil.org].
  • Go one up on them...
    Change it to HarderRadio!
  • It's not hard to do. It costs $335. And you can do it online [uspto.gov] in about fifteen minutes.

    If you register a trademark and it's rejected for the "principal register" as not being unique enough, you may be able to get registration on the "supplemental register". If your trademark is on the supplemental register, you can't enforce it against others, but you're protected against claims by others. So it's worth doing in cases like the one here.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close