4 ms·

Couldn't someone like Google, Apple, or any of the other huge companies who have made billions with the help of *nix and OSS in general step in and help out wit

Couldn't someone like Google, Apple, or any of the other huge companies who have made billions with the help of *nix and OSS in general step in and help out with what, to them, is a trivial drop in the bucket of money? Also how is it even legal for someone to so openly and malicious intrude on a trademarked name? I thought that's the entire point of trademarks.. it protects you from this?

iancarroll 12y ago
Not a lawyer, but it seems that they're applying under a different class of usage.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  I don't know about that. The GNOME project links to their trademark here: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76368848&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76368848&caseType=SERIAL_N... Under "Goods and Services", I see it as being marked "U.S Class(es): 021, 023, 026, 036, 038" (also classes 100 and 101, which appear to be services). Here's one of the trademarks Groupon's filing: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287930&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287930&caseType=SERIAL_N... In contrast to the GNOME trademark, this one is for goods classes... 021, 023, 026, 036, and 038. That doesn't seem all that different to me. As a sanity check, here's http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287912&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287912&caseType=SERIAL_N..., the "FLAVOR FLIP" mark for "Brix controls sold as components of refrigerated beverage dispensing machines". Its listed US Class(es) are: 013, 021, 023, 031, 034. So I feel pretty safe in saying that Groupon applied for the GNOME mark in exactly the trademark classes that the GNOME foundation already owned it in. Also, I'm kind of curious what trademark classes 021 and 023 are.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    I've not looked at the marks that GNOME (the linux distro/project) hold - as you say someone else can file for marks in other classes, separation by market area and geography allow for otherwise coterminous use of registered trademarks. However Groupon's _use_ http://investor.groupon.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=848707 http://investor.groupon.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=8487... is clearly going to cause confusion [in the legal, TM sense] with GNOME's whether GNOME's mark is registered or not. I'm not sure about the details of confusion clauses under the USC but it's definitely a thing in trademark law. Also, as your 2nd link shows Groupon's is a current application that is awaiting applicant response: presumably it's the use of the mark that GNOME are fighting at present rather than the ongoing trademark application (which they can simply make observations on that the examiner can use to reject the mark [or not if they're insane]).
borplk 12y ago
They could. But they don't have to, so they wont.
zaphoyd 12y ago
Apple isn't really a stranger to announcing products with already trademarked names..
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  For those who don't get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer It would be delightfully ironic to see Apple providing money in support here, but I'm not holding my breath.
  - swang 12y ago
    I believe parent is talking about iPhone and iPad. "iPhone" was owned by Cisco in the US which Apple eventually bought the trademark from. I believe Apple lost its case in China with either the iPad or iPhone name. Apple was able to call itself Apple because they were not in the music business (albeit there were a few quibbles about sounds) until they started selling digital songs.
- SixSigma 12y ago
  See also gmail http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/31/google_looses_trademark_battle/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/31/google_looses_tradem...

iancarroll 12y ago

Not a lawyer, but it seems that they're applying under a different class of usage.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
I don't know about that. The GNOME project links to their trademark here: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76368848&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76368848&caseType=SERIAL_N... Under "Goods and Services", I see it as being marked "U.S Class(es): 021, 023, 026, 036, 038" (also classes 100 and 101, which appear to be services). Here's one of the trademarks Groupon's filing: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287930&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287930&caseType=SERIAL_N... In contrast to the GNOME trademark, this one is for goods classes... 021, 023, 026, 036, and 038. That doesn't seem all that different to me. As a sanity check, here's http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287912&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86287912&caseType=SERIAL_N..., the "FLAVOR FLIP" mark for "Brix controls sold as components of refrigerated beverage dispensing machines". Its listed US Class(es) are: 013, 021, 023, 031, 034. So I feel pretty safe in saying that Groupon applied for the GNOME mark in exactly the trademark classes that the GNOME foundation already owned it in. Also, I'm kind of curious what trademark classes 021 and 023 are.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  I've not looked at the marks that GNOME (the linux distro/project) hold - as you say someone else can file for marks in other classes, separation by market area and geography allow for otherwise coterminous use of registered trademarks. However Groupon's _use_ http://investor.groupon.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=848707 http://investor.groupon.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=8487... is clearly going to cause confusion [in the legal, TM sense] with GNOME's whether GNOME's mark is registered or not. I'm not sure about the details of confusion clauses under the USC but it's definitely a thing in trademark law. Also, as your 2nd link shows Groupon's is a current application that is awaiting applicant response: presumably it's the use of the mark that GNOME are fighting at present rather than the ongoing trademark application (which they can simply make observations on that the examiner can use to reject the mark [or not if they're insane]).

borplk 12y ago

They could. But they don't have to, so they wont.

zaphoyd 12y ago

Apple isn't really a stranger to announcing products with already trademarked names..

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
chimeracoder 12y ago
For those who don't get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer It would be delightfully ironic to see Apple providing money in support here, but I'm not holding my breath.
- swang 12y ago
  I believe parent is talking about iPhone and iPad. "iPhone" was owned by Cisco in the US which Apple eventually bought the trademark from. I believe Apple lost its case in China with either the iPad or iPhone name. Apple was able to call itself Apple because they were not in the music business (albeit there were a few quibbles about sounds) until they started selling digital songs.
SixSigma 12y ago
See also gmail http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/31/google_looses_trademark_battle/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/31/google_looses_tradem...