3 ms·

>>The domain name is not used in bad faith, given that the web site directs people back to the trademark owner's site, doesn't ask for money, doesn't run banner

>>The domain name is not used in bad faith, given that the web site directs people back to the trademark owner's site, doesn't ask for money, doesn't run banner advertising, doesn't ask for personal registration. It has been demonstrated that the trademark owner is suppressing the blogs of some volunteers with authorship rights and Respondent’s site exists to give those voices an equal status. The founding documents published by the trademark owner (Exhibit 104) encourage us to give voice to all sides. Fail to understand fedora's motives here other than censorship

tialaramex 5y ago
Fedora doesn't like Pocock because - I think many people would agree - he's an asshole. However, as Thomas More puts it in the play about his life and betrayal, "there's no law against that".
- pipapocock 5y ago
- Handytinge 5y ago
  For what it's worth, I've been at a number of conferences with him in the past and whilst I don't know him intimately, he's always seemed a nice and good natured person yo me.
zozbot234 5y ago
You have to enforce your trademarks otherwise they might be declared invalid. Regardless of the final decision, what RedHat did seems pretty normal to me.
- atdrummond 5y ago
  This notion that surefire mark enforcement can only be achieved through blanket legal action against all potential abusers of the mark is parroted on HN repeatedly; however, the real world situation is a bit more complex. A firm will not lose their trademarks if they don't aggressively sue each and every person/business who might potentially be infringing upon the firm's marks. In fact, for firms like Red Hat who are actively selling a product, (and therefore utilizing the mark in commerce and in a way that makes that mark very well known to potential customers) said ongoing business operations typically ensure that courts will regard one's mark as defended and active, especially if one ensures that the firm does go after the most very egregious violations. TL;DR: Firms do not need to obsessively litigate against every single person using their mark.

tialaramex 5y ago

Fedora doesn't like Pocock because - I think many people would agree - he's an asshole. However, as Thomas More puts it in the play about his life and betrayal, "there's no law against that".

pipapocock 5y ago
Handytinge 5y ago
For what it's worth, I've been at a number of conferences with him in the past and whilst I don't know him intimately, he's always seemed a nice and good natured person yo me.

zozbot234 5y ago

You have to enforce your trademarks otherwise they might be declared invalid. Regardless of the final decision, what RedHat did seems pretty normal to me.

atdrummond 5y ago
This notion that surefire mark enforcement can only be achieved through blanket legal action against all potential abusers of the mark is parroted on HN repeatedly; however, the real world situation is a bit more complex. A firm will not lose their trademarks if they don't aggressively sue each and every person/business who might potentially be infringing upon the firm's marks. In fact, for firms like Red Hat who are actively selling a product, (and therefore utilizing the mark in commerce and in a way that makes that mark very well known to potential customers) said ongoing business operations typically ensure that courts will regard one's mark as defended and active, especially if one ensures that the firm does go after the most very egregious violations. TL;DR: Firms do not need to obsessively litigate against every single person using their mark.