4 ms·

A lawyer sending threats is by most people's definition a act of aggression. Especially when it's very doubtful there was infringement.

by msh 13y ago

chc 13y ago
It does not seem very doubtful to me. The site in question appropriated the two main Ubuntu marks, displayed them as prominently as possible, carried no other identifying marks of any kind and didn't include any kind of disclaimer†. If all of that isn't enough for you to say, "Y'know, maybe he was infringing," what exactly would he have to do for you to say that? † It's worth noting that even officially sanctioned sites like UbuntuForums take care to explain that they are not Canonical.
- msh 13y ago
  He would have to be claiming to be officially ubuntu or leaving that impression with people. I dont think there was any doubt that the site was not a official ubuntu site. In my mind this falls under fair use as specifically allowed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law). If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product.
  - chc 13y ago
    > He would have to be claiming to be officially ubuntu or leaving that impression with people. Again, the word "Ubuntu" was the majority of the domain name and the majority of the page header, and in the header it was accompanied by the Ubuntu logo. Nowhere was any other branding used than Ubuntu's and he made no attempt to clarify that he was not associated with Canonical or Ubuntu. If that isn't enough to even be potentially confusing, what is the bar you think he'd have to clear? Does the page need to literally include the words "THIS IS UBUNTU SPEAKING. I AM HEREBY CLAIMING TO BE UBUNTU"? > I dont think there was any doubt that the site was not a official ubuntu site Please remember that there are many thousands of people who log into Facebook by Googling the phrase "Facebook login" and blindly clicking the first thing that comes up (http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_meme http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_m...). You are more technically savvy than most people, so the fact that this does not confuse you doesn't mean it doesn't confuse anyone. > If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product. Not at all, for example, here's an Ars Technica review of Ubuntu: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntu-13-10-review-the-linux-os-of-the-future-remains-a-year-away/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntu... Does the domain name substantially consist of the mark "Ubuntu"? No, and in fact it isn't even part of the domain name. Does the header at the top of the page say "Ubuntu"? No, it says "Ars Technica". Is the Ubuntu logo used as an identifying mark on the page? No, it isn't. This page has a clear identity besides "Ubuntu." It is clearly an article by Ryan Paul of Ars Technica about Ubuntu, and all of the Ubuntu trademarks are used illustratively, not as branding. The same is not true of FixUbuntu.
    - msh 13y ago
      Two things, do you really think that most most people will think a fixubuntu site is a official ubuntu site? Does he in any way profit from the site? The second thing, did you read my link about fair use? I think this pretty much falls into it.
      - chc 13y ago
        > Two things, do you really think that most most people will think a fixubuntu site is a official ubuntu site? Most? Probably not. But I think the potential is there for many to do so. > The second thing, did you read my link about fair use? I think this pretty much falls into it. Yes, but as you have not explained why you think it applies here, I don't know what you expect me to get from that link. I have already explained why this use does not seem clearly nominative to me†, and he certainly wasn't using the term "ubuntu" in a generic sense. † For starters, using the Ubuntu logo as the site's logo seems extremely superfluous. Do you believe visitors to the site will now have trouble telling what Ubuntu is since the logo has been removed?
        msh 13y ago
        It is this part i find especially relevant: A nonowner may also use a trademark nominatively—to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis
girvo 13y ago
Not doubtful in the slightest, IMO.

A lawyer sending threats is by most people's definition a act of aggression. Especially when it's very doubtful there was infringement.

by msh 13y ago

A lawyer sending threats is by most people's definition a act of aggression. Especially when it's very doubtful there was infringement.

chc 13y ago

It does not seem very doubtful to me. The site in question appropriated the two main Ubuntu marks, displayed them as prominently as possible, carried no other identifying marks of any kind and didn't include any kind of disclaimer†. If all of that isn't enough for you to say, "Y'know, maybe he was infringing," what exactly would he have to do for you to say that? † It's worth noting that even officially sanctioned sites like UbuntuForums take care to explain that they are not Canonical.

msh 13y ago
He would have to be claiming to be officially ubuntu or leaving that impression with people. I dont think there was any doubt that the site was not a official ubuntu site. In my mind this falls under fair use as specifically allowed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law). If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product.
- chc 13y ago
  > He would have to be claiming to be officially ubuntu or leaving that impression with people. Again, the word "Ubuntu" was the majority of the domain name and the majority of the page header, and in the header it was accompanied by the Ubuntu logo. Nowhere was any other branding used than Ubuntu's and he made no attempt to clarify that he was not associated with Canonical or Ubuntu. If that isn't enough to even be potentially confusing, what is the bar you think he'd have to clear? Does the page need to literally include the words "THIS IS UBUNTU SPEAKING. I AM HEREBY CLAIMING TO BE UBUNTU"? > I dont think there was any doubt that the site was not a official ubuntu site Please remember that there are many thousands of people who log into Facebook by Googling the phrase "Facebook login" and blindly clicking the first thing that comes up (http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_meme http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_m...). You are more technically savvy than most people, so the fact that this does not confuse you doesn't mean it doesn't confuse anyone. > If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product. Not at all, for example, here's an Ars Technica review of Ubuntu: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntu-13-10-review-the-linux-os-of-the-future-remains-a-year-away/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntu... Does the domain name substantially consist of the mark "Ubuntu"? No, and in fact it isn't even part of the domain name. Does the header at the top of the page say "Ubuntu"? No, it says "Ars Technica". Is the Ubuntu logo used as an identifying mark on the page? No, it isn't. This page has a clear identity besides "Ubuntu." It is clearly an article by Ryan Paul of Ars Technica about Ubuntu, and all of the Ubuntu trademarks are used illustratively, not as branding. The same is not true of FixUbuntu.
  - msh 13y ago
    Two things, do you really think that most most people will think a fixubuntu site is a official ubuntu site? Does he in any way profit from the site? The second thing, did you read my link about fair use? I think this pretty much falls into it.
    - chc 13y ago
      > Two things, do you really think that most most people will think a fixubuntu site is a official ubuntu site? Most? Probably not. But I think the potential is there for many to do so. > The second thing, did you read my link about fair use? I think this pretty much falls into it. Yes, but as you have not explained why you think it applies here, I don't know what you expect me to get from that link. I have already explained why this use does not seem clearly nominative to me†, and he certainly wasn't using the term "ubuntu" in a generic sense. † For starters, using the Ubuntu logo as the site's logo seems extremely superfluous. Do you believe visitors to the site will now have trouble telling what Ubuntu is since the logo has been removed?
      - msh 13y ago
        It is this part i find especially relevant: A nonowner may also use a trademark nominatively—to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis

girvo 13y ago

Not doubtful in the slightest, IMO.