David Richerby wrote:
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
>
>> "Scid" is a trademark of Shane Hudson
>
>No it isn't.
Yes it is. You appear to have an ongoing misconception as
to the basis upon which trademarks are established.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/appcontent.htm#basis
says "the mark must appear on the goods, the container for the
goods, or displays associated with the goods, and the goods must
be sold or trans****ted in commerce." Feel free to search the USPTO
website for any addition requirements. There aren't any.
A trademark can be established without the trademark owner
registering it, defending it (there may be no infringement
to defend against) or even knowing what a trademark is.
>I'm not taking sides in your argument with Pascal
Actually, you are encouraging him to keep stealing the name
"Scid." In the past he has referenced your posts as
justification for doing so.
>but please stick to the facts.
You are allowed to have your own opinion, but not your own
facts. "Scid" is a trademark of Shane Hudson for the exact
same reason that "Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Here, once again, is the reasoning behind the above claim.
If you disagree, please state why. The last time you just
went silent, only to surface later with the same wrong ideas
about how trademarks are established.
The question of who owns the Trademark "Linux" and the legal
decision made in that case clearly show what is and what is
not the basis for trademark owner****p.
Linus Torvalds created Linux in 1991. At that time and for
years afterward he made no trademark claims, didn't register
it, didn't add (TM) to it when he wrote about it, and did
absolutely nothing to stop many other people from calling
their products "Linux."
Then, in 1994, William R. Della Croce Jr. made the very first
claim in history that "Linux" is a trademark and that he is
the owner. Everyone ignored him until 1996 started demanding
10 percent royalties on sales from Linux vendors.
In the resulting lawsuit, R. Della Croce's claim was nullified
and the Linux trademark was legally assigned to Linus Torvalds.
See [ http://www.linuxmark.org/
]. It would have been nice if
it had come down to a court decicion, but Della Croce folded
like a cheap suit and gave Linus everything he wanted as soon
as it became evident how weak his case was.
Especially instructive is the Petition to Cancel filed by
Linus Torvalds and others: [ http://lwn.net/Articles/148228/
].
Nowhere in that do***ent is there any claim that anyone other
than Croce was the first to claim that Linux is a trademark.
That Petition to Cancel was written by some of the top lawyers
in the field, so it is safe to say that the Petition to Cancel
is based upon what is and what is not the basis for trademark
owner****p.
The only reason given -- and this is a key point -- for assigning
it to Linus Torvalds is that it was in use in commerce long
before he made his claim.
"Linux" became a trademark when the first dollar changed hands
while buying a copy. That is the only requirement.
You could make an argument (although you have not done so in
the past) that Shane Hudson has abandoned his trademark by not
defending it, in which case the court would have to take into
consideration whether he was aware of the infringement, whether
he was well enough to make a defense possible, and whether
"Scid" has become a generic term for any chess database.
That could be a reasonable legal argument. The assertion that
you have made in the past ("Nothing is trademarked unless you
explicitly say that it is") is inconsistent with the claims
made in the Linux Trademark case and with the USPTO do***ent
referenced above.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
|
