IDG and 'Trademark Dilution' For Dummies 635
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Plump
X-Sender: plumpy@magic.hurrah.com
To: plug@Northwest.com
Subject: [PLUG] PLUG: Cease and Desist (this means you David Welton)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-plug@Northwest.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: plug@Northwest.com
Heh. On 10/23/1998 David Welton made a post with the subject "SMART_HOST for dummies". Apparently IDG Books didn't like that so much. They found
the post in the PLUG archives and emailed the owner of skylab.org (a fictional character named Joe Dietz) telling him to remove the page.
Anyone got advice about what I should do? Ignore it? Reply asserting
that I'm not responsible for the content (am I?). Or...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Allen Plump | Snorks + Kr0n =3D yip yip yip! |
plumpy@skylab.org
"Salsa jazz music reminds me of the time my grandpa ate his left ear."
--Joe Dietz
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:26:11 -0500
From: Isabelle Drewelow
To: dietz@SKYLAB.ORG
Subject: your web site
October 28, 1999
Joe Dietz dietz@SKYLAB.ORG
BY E-MAIL
Re: Smart_Host for Dummies
Dear Mr. Dietz,
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. ("IDG Books") is the publisher of the well-known and well-regarded "...FOR DUMMIES" series of reference books and products.
It has come to my attention that you are using the subtitle "Smart_Host for Dummies" in a chat room on your Web site at: [link ] While we wish you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
As you probably know, IDG Books publishes and distributes globally a line of reference books known as the "...FOR DUMMIES" series. This series has been in existence since 1991 and has been translated into 38 languages. In addition, there are many other successful FOR DUMMIES products including calendars, audio books, musical compact discs, toys, games, and clothing.
IDG Books has made a substantial investment in promoting the identification of this trademark to its distributors and customers, and currently has registrations in many countries.
Because of the significant efforts that IDG Books has undertaken to promote and protect its trademarks, and because of the potential for confusion and/or dilution, we trust that you can appreciate our concerns. For your information, dilution is a relatively new area of law which requires the owner of a trademark to protect it against "erosion" and/or dilution. Some famous examples of trademark dilution are Kleenex tissues, Scotch Tape, Xeroxing and Aspirin, as these marks were not protected by their respective owners and, today have become almost generic terms. At IDG Books, our goal is to prevent such "generalization" from happening to our trademarks.
Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably. Accordingly, we request that you change "Smart_Host for Dummies" to a non-infringing title and provide IDG Books with written assurances that you will refrain from using its trademarks in the future. We look forward to hearing from you by November 10th , 1999.
Very truly yours,
Isabelle Drewelow
Trademark Coordinator
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
(Note: It is really a mailing list, and not a chat room, but the fact that they think it is a chat room scares me even more)
no more for me... (Score:1)
Amazing! (Score:1)
heheh... (Score:1)
Maybe they need to read "Internet for Dummies"?
Dummies For Dummies (Score:1)
Content Nuetrality (Score:2)
Seems to me that the same arguements apply here. If he were to modify the archive, he would give up content nuetrality. Seems like a good reason not to. Worst case would seem to be that he might eventually be ordered by a court to change the archive, but then he could still claim content nuetrality, and a court would seem to be hard pressed to apply any fines when he points out the bind and claims good will.
who's next ? (Score:1)
So they called it "Bacteria R Us".
Ooops... better call the duty lawyer
Re:Subject line trademarking (Score:1)
From: Isabelle Drewelow
To: anonymous_coward@slashdot.org
Subject: Your Slashdot Posting
October 28, 1999
anonymous_coward@slashdot.org
BY E-MAIL
Re: OpenGL for Dummies
Dear Mr. Coward,
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. ("IDG Books") is the publisher of the
well-known and well-regarded "...FOR DUMMIES" series of reference
books and products.
It has come to my attention that you are using the subtitle "OpenGL
for Dummies" in a chat room on your Web site at: http://www.slashdot.org While we wish
you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with
respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
As you probably know, IDG Books publishes and distributes globally a
line of reference books known as the "...FOR DUMMIES" series. This
series has been in existence since 1991 and has been translated into
38 languages. In addition, there are many other successful FOR
DUMMIES products including calendars, audio books, musical
compact discs, toys, games, and clothing.
IDG Books has made a substantial investment in promoting the
identification of this trademark to its distributors and customers, and
currently has registrations in many countries.
Because of the significant efforts that IDG Books has undertaken to
promote and protect its trademarks, and because of the potential for
confusion and/or dilution, we trust that you can appreciate our
concerns. For your information, dilution is a relatively new area of law
which requires the owner of a trademark to protect it against "erosion"
and/or dilution. Some famous examples of trademark dilution are
Kleenex tissues, Scotch Tape, Xeroxing and Aspirin, as these marks
were not protected by their respective owners and, today have
become almost generic terms. At IDG Books, our goal is to prevent
such "generalization" from happening to our trademarks.
Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and
amicably. Accordingly, we request that you change "OpenGL for
Dummies" to a non-infringing title and provide IDG Books with written
assurances that you will refrain from using its trademarks in the future.
We look forward to hearing from you by November 10th , 1999.
Very truly yours,
Isabelle Drewlalot
Trademark Coordinator
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
Re:Not really a name to be proud of. (Score:2)
I've refused to buy any "For Dummies" or "For Idiots" or "For Microcephalics" or whatever for a long time. My theory is that you either need a much weaker or a much stronger self image than I have to purchase one, though I imagine they make excellent gifts for that hard-to-please in-law.
Pay Attention, People! (Score:1)
He is not using the "Dummies" name in any way for a handle, username, website or anything else. It was simply a proposal for a "Smart_Host for Dummies" book in reply to an earlier message. Both of the messages (the original and the 'offending' messages were on the Portland Linux Users Group *mailing list*. It appears on the website as do all messages to the list beucase they are archived.
Apparently, companies are now suing over the rights to use their names as thread-subjects? You know, I'd like to propose that someone publish "Dummies Guide To Being An Uptight Corporate Fascist Asshole", but I wouldn't want IDG to sue me
Patents and copyrights have been no more infringed than if I were to post a message to a mailing list about how I wish Pepsi would come out with their own brand of coffee.
Anyone who still isn't clear on this, do yourself a favor and visit the proposed response from Michael himself:
http://www.sklab.org/~plumpy/idgreply.txt [sklab.org]
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:3)
-------snip--------
That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that someone publish a book entitled "Sendmail for Dummies".
-------snip--------
Here's my version:
-------snip--------
That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that someone, either IDG or another publisher, publish a "...for Dummies" style book. As you know, your name recognition is exceptional, thanks to the great series of books that you have published.
-------snip--------
RP
To the slashdot community, (Score:2)
Early in my first year I gained the rights to such phonetical noises as ma-ma and "P-I-E pie". Later in my development I began to use such parts of speech as verbs and nouns. Recognizing these as keys to profit, I trademarked those as well as any pattern matching [a-zA-Z0-9]* . Fear not, I am not attempting to trademark the entire English language and character set, that would mean hampering my communications with you.
I cheerfully relinquish the trademark rights to
- Pronouns
- The Articles
- The verbs is, as, are, were, been, and does
- Conjunctions
- The prepositions of and for
- Individuals may use their birthnames without penalty
I believe that the vocabulary that I have listed is sufficient for most daily communication.Me is and are of and with I but for you,
John F. Hurst
I'm glad that maddog's book/pamphlet was free, I don't think I'll be using cash with these guys.
Between the horns! (Score:1)
Ok, then it seems fine to trademark that for a book on computers or IT but can they really appropriate the use of it in language? Did I just violate their trademark just then?
I would suggest searching (perhaps in newspaper archives) for examples that predate their trademark. Perhaps use in headline would be a very strong argument.
What about Usenet? (Score:1)
Ok, so there's a trademark problem, and so they have to change the archive. What about the original e-mails, which could be sitting on people's computers still? OK, the lawyers probably don't know of their existance, but is it legally different?
(or, if the lawyers did know about the e-mails, would their response be to e-mail the users and ask them to change the subject lines of the stored e-mails?)
One wonders what would have happened if this had happened in Usenet, and they had, say, come across it in Dejanews. Could Dejanews be required to change their archives? Could the original poster be required to send out a cancel (bearing in mind that not all newsservers honour cancels)?
Could get tricky...
(nb: IAdefinatelyNAL)
--
Repton.
Anal Retentive Alert (Score:1)
But seriously, you are right in the other aspects. The real way to "fix" this is to get the laws change, which likely won't happen because lawyers are predominantly the ones who are making the laws.
Unfortunately, joining the US congress is akin to the Kiss of Death to somebodies career. This is why almost every congress-person, indeed almost everyone in government, is generally retired and independantly wealthy, or a career politician. This is why doctors and other professionals generally don't run for office. As soon as the legislature is in session, they have to leave and most of their clients will leave for other pastures.
So what's the solution? I have no frickin idea. I just think the root problem has to be fixed before attempting to get anything done, or else the "solutions" will be corrupted and things will always remain the same.
publishing vs. posting (Score:1)
Methinks that the misunderstanding here involves confusing publishing with merely posting, as it applies on the web. If someone sent a letter to the editor of a print publication using the phrase "..For Dummies", the editor would probably insert the necessary '(tm)' or whatnot. Clearly, a mailing list moderator or a webmaster of a site like slashdot can't easily do this....
... Unless(tm) You(tm) Write(tm) A(tm) Simple(tm) Perl(tm) Script(tm) That(tm) Adds(tm) These(tm) Marks(tm) Everywhere(tm).
(on your end, you'd want to do the reverse translation)
Re:Not really a name to be proud of. (Score:1)
Steven Rostedt
Suggested response (Score:5)
I suggest a response along the following lines:
Dear Ms. Drewelow,
Thank you for your letter of October 28. While we understand that it is your job to defend your trademark, we feel that you are asserting an overly broad right to a common phrase in the English language that was in wide use before IDG ever existed as a corporate entity. We do not choose to use the phrase "XXX for dummies" because IDG made it popular; it was a popular phrase before IDG existed as a corporate entity. For this reason, your task of preventing the dilution of the term is probably hopeless; the term is quite diluted already since so many people use it without thinking of IDG books in any way.
While the courts have limited commercial speech, we are not engaging in for-profit activity here and freedom of speech is an important value to us. As private individuals we do not believe that you, or the Congress, has the power to stop us from using the phrase "for dummies" however we choose. We therefore respectfully decline your request.
We assure you that we will not compete with IDG by publishing a book with "... For Dummies" in the title, and we will not in any way imitate the "look and feel" of your "For Dummies" book series.
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:1)
btw. What the hell is a D00d?
Tea
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:5)
In case you haven't noticed, these people are attorneys. They are paid hundreds of dollars an hour by corporations like IDG just to stomp on people like you. Just writing that letter probably cost IDG a cool $300. If you get pissy with them, then they will drop the hammer on you.
They honestly don't give a shit if you're polite to them or not. What they care about is protecting and preserving the intellectual-property rights of their client, IDG. Snippiness is completely irrelevant to them.
If you want to avoid a long, prolonged flamewar with a lawyer -- and when lawyers flame, they do it in ways that your pocketbook will feel -- then I suggest writing back a polite, professional letter.
This is not Usenet, and you do not get style points for creative flamage.
Ulysses for Dummies (Score:3)
(The page linked to here is a description of an e-mail exchange with IDG's lawyers; at the bottom of that page is a link to the "offending" site.)
moron (Score:1)
I just don't get it (Score:1)
Just think, I need to go buy some Kleenex (Kleenexes?) I walk into a store, and voila, there's a whole shelf of them. Nevermind that I just needed tissues.
Re:Slashdot in trademark violation (Score:1)
"Stop saying it. AAAArghh!
"You've said it! Aaaaarghhh!
-beme
Nonsense: IDG does not have to do this (Score:4)
They are demanding that a comment with the title "SmartHost for dummies" be stripped from the archives of a mailing list. Do you think that the 1st Amendment has been repealed?
Now, if someone produced a book with a yellow cover called "SmartHost for Dummies", yes, that would be a trademark violation.
IDG Expos and LinuxWorld (Score:1)
Visit:
IDG Expos [idgexpos.com], the people who bring you the LinuxWorld Conference.
LinuxWorld [linuxworld.com], IDG Expos' sister company.
Be sure to mention that you heard about it on Slashdot. That'll grab their attention.
Marlboro
Moderation. (Score:1)
I'd personally prefer being able to weight scores (or at least sorting) by which aspect was moderated up. Some days (or topics) I'd like to see only funny posts, some days only interesting/informative ones.
Oh well, all in all moderation is good. I tried reading without sorting by score or showing moderation points the other day. It was much worse.
--
You never expect the.... (Score:1)
I guess the Spanish Inquisition began by asking politely, before they got around to the red hot pokers and thumbscrews. So if, instead of replying:
"Maybe.."
to the polite enquiry:
"Do you renounce Satan and all his many demons..?"
The hapless enquired-of had responded:
"Now see here, you regressive and pathetic excuse for a clergyman, seeking to trick us poor peasants into falsely confessing to all manner of trumped-up demonic practises - you can take your red hot poker and stick it where the sun shineth not"
Whilst at the same time, swiftly clouting the inquisitor in the testicles with a spiked mace, then the middle ages could have been a way more pleasant time to live. (And there must be a lot of sub-12 year old juveniles hereabouts judging by the reaction on the list.)
WSP+++
batlev@hotmail.com
Re:give me a break. (Score:2)
Its not your neck on the line, it's "Plumpy"'s. And posting as a AC doesn't show that you are willing to stick your neck out.
Yes, I thought it was a witty letter, but I also believe that you should fight for your rights, and not cross the line to being on the offensive.
I'm just sticking out for plumpy.
Steven Rostedt
Issue a GENERAL DENIAL (Score:2)
If you respond to them at all, just say "There is no misuse of your trademark on my site," and nothing else. If you carefully explain why they are wrong, you give them something to attack, which will put you in a weaker legal position if it comes to that (which it shouldn't anyway).
My personal rule is to ignore all threatening correspondance that does not come from actual lawyers ("Trademark Coordinator" bitches don't count).
And the most important one of all... (Score:1)
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:1)
>Although others feel they would not be nearly
>as polite, I caution you to be even more so.
>Both security and lawyers DO NOT have a sense
>of humor.
"Do not trifle with wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger"?
(all trademarks, copyrights, etc are the property of their respective owners, yada yada yada...)
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com) [mrjoy.com]
What is a D00d (Score:1)
--
Re:IDG has to do this (Score:2)
What strikes me as interesting... (Score:1)
Re:IDG has to do this (Score:2)
Plenty of comapnies rue the day when they lose such important brand identification.
Yeah, but they should be happy, too. It gives them incredible brand recognition. I think that every company's dream should be losing their trademark from dilution.
--
An Author's Perspective on IDG (Score:1)
I know other authors who've worked with IDG; the company is domineering, ignorant, and downright cheap and greedy...
This, BTW, is a good example of why intellectual property is important: By owning the copyrights to my works, I was able to prevent them from being reprinted by an objectionable publisher.
frivilous legal actions for dummies (Score:1)
Legal Masturbation For Dummies (Score:1)
Ya think IDG will go for this as their next big title?
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be: "That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that IDG publish a '...for Dummies' book on the topic of Sendmail. This was not meant to dilute your trademark, rather it was a specific request for a book in your series."
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com) [mrjoy.com]
Section 1125(c)4(C) (Score:2)
(From "Here's the law in question" thread below)
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:1)
anywho, good luck
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
Hi, mostly a good reply, but remember you are talking to lawyers here and to paraphrase MIB "No m'am the legal profession do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of"
For the most part their initial letter seems to be a polite relatively non-threatening (aside from the fact that it came from a legal firm) request that you correct an apparent potential dilution of their highly valuable copyright.
They have notably failed to mention any proposed legal action they may take against you and their closing paragraph does indicate a wish to resolve the matter amicably "Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably."
I would suggest that you alter the paragraph:
to read as follows: This has the double effect of acknowleging IDG as the holders of the TM and removing a potentially offensive reference to their lawyers.It would probably also be worthwhile to include an explanation of the nature of the archives and pointing out A) That you have no control of the contents of the archive and B) that the controversial material is part of a publicly archived message (and as such is protected under the 1st amendment) and is not listed in any way as a subject of the site itself.
Stating in closing that you are happy to enter into discussions with them regarding this problem would not only be polite but also demonstrate that you are also willing to find an amicable solution to the problem.
This strikes me as somewhat condescending, but that's just me The fact that they are fictional entities does not protect the real person behind them from legal action.Free Speech for Dummies! (Score:1)
Ok, maybe not.
R
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Furthermore, they SHOULD sue me. If I get everyone referring to "Learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies", brand recognition is damaged and IDG has wasted quite a few marketing dollars. There's a reason why companies spend huge sums of money on advertising just to get us to remember things like names and logos.
The first amendment has nothing to do with it. Plenty of kinds of speech are not protected by the first amendment. If you don't believe me, go into an airport and yell "I'VE GOT A BOMB!" Then, when they arrest you, argue that you were just exercising your first amendment rights and see if they let you go.
By the way, in case you think otherwise companies care deeply about what is said on newsgroups, as well they should.
Re:I feel sorry for Hormel... (Score:1)
Re:It's pre-diluted. (Score:1)
Trademarks are only allowed to be terms not in general usage -- thus I cannot trademark "car" and make demands upon everyone who uses the term...
-JF
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com) [mrjoy.com]
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:1)
I wonder what slashdot would be like if we were talking and interacting in a virtual world instead of posting messages? Would we be lynching all of "them"? Them being your choice of lawyers, businessmen, or stupid people.
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:1)
Very poor (Score:4)
Why do you feel the need to respond to them so immaturely? What they sent to you seemed polite in every way. Honest mistakes happen all the time; most mature adults have learned to repond to them graciously rather than in a childishly antagonistic way. I'd suggest politely pointing out that they were mistaken in that it was just a message title (as well as a request for such a book to be published) and not a chat room. Do you really expect to gain sympathy from anyone above the age of 12 by displaying such juvenility?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Absolutely Not Responsible (Score:1)
Sure, it's a Maxwell House [kraftfoods.com] ad, but I didn't use it in the the context of an advertisement for something. It was an incidental comment made by someone, and it happened to get captured as a very small part of a larger work.
Now, let's continue and suppose that the documentary is aired by PBS [pbs.org], and some lawyer from Kraft Foods [kraftfoods.com] saw it and considered taking action against PBS [pbs.org], or perhaps myself, as the producer of the work.
Now one might argue that this is very different, because it was aired on PBS [pbs.org] one time and now it's over. OK, let's take it one step further and suppose that PBS [pbs.org] liked this documentary so much that they decided to sell the video. There they go, blatantly using Maxwell House's [kraftfoods.com] slogan to sell their video, erroding the brand recognition that in which they have invested so much.
Is this the stupidest thing you've ever heard? Me too, and I see no difference between the two.
Along the same lines, if somebody out there is looking for a delicious and nutricious project, I'm sure you could find a slogan or something in CNN's transcript archives [cnn.com], which would be pretty much the EXACT same thing as we're talking about in this story.
BTW, I suppose my using the actual slogan in this posting is just as serious an infraction, so I'm sure Kraft will be jumping on Rob and the Boys real soon.
That's my take,
RP
Re:Nonsense: IDG does not have to do this (Score:1)
>be stripped from the archives of a mailing list.
Not only that, but their little trademark phrase,
"...for dummies", is so darn popular, that people
use it without realizing it. We're not infringing, because we're not selling it, instead, we're popularizing and accepting their little trademark!
Re:They don't have much choice, do they? (Score:1)
It's a trademark, not a copyright but you are exactly right.
A trademark can go bye-bye if it is abused. A copyright can not.
A copyright can only become void if the owner places something in the public domain, or the copyright expires. (which happens after 75 years IIRC)
-JF
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com) [mrjoy.com]
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
I'm on the same mailing list. (Look for ``llywrch" in the records, & you'll find my real name. FWIW.) I just read about this episode at lunch. A few hours later, it's a hot topic on Slashdot.
Observation one: the wheels of justice may move slow, but the Internet's are turbocharged. All the more reason to think before acting.
Observation two: IDG has a weakness or two of their own. If a couple of people are exchanging email on a mail list about needing a book like ``Sendmail for Dummies" or ``SNMP for Dummies", & IDG goes after them for perceived Copyright Infringement, how likely are they going to get support for their next title from the Internet community?
(Have you heard about the abusive interview with Pete Rose? Did you also hear how the entire NY Yankee's team decided they would refuse all interviews with the journalist responsible?)
Observation three: Joe Dietz does not exist? Shoot. I had always thought he was one of the Usenet Freedom Knights on n.a.n.[eu]. Or maybe he *is*, & is the most respected one of that ilk.
Geoff
Re:who's next ? (Score:2)
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
Re:Here's the law in question ...Sorted! (Score:5)
commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing
goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
1125(c)4(B)... They haven't got a leg to stand on.
Re:They don't have much choice, do they? (Score:3)
I think what happened must be that this Isabelle Drewelow, who sent the cease and desist order, didn't understand the nature and intent of the web page she had found by typing "for dummies" in the AltaVista search field. She must have though there was genuine trademark infringement going on.
The best course of action would be to respond calmly, politely and informatively (even dropping the sarcasm). Not everyone who doesn't grok the 'net deserves our ridicule. (Whether such people should be cruising it in search of trademark violations is another matter.)
--
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:4)
For the most part I agree with your statement. However, while, as previously stated I'm not a lawyer, I'd have to say that common carrier status is really, really tough here because we are talking about a mailing list. AOL lost this battle at least once already.
Although there is recourse. He could simply claim fair use, which is protected to some extent under trademark laws. For example, I could write a review in magazine about a Corvette, or even compare, say a Dodge Viper to a Corvette, and neither DaimlerChrysler nor General Motors could sue me for trademark infringement because I was reviewing their respective products. Even if I stated that I thought that GM should produce say a "Corvette Lite" which would be low-end version of the Corvette to combat the Mustang, for instance would not be infringement for the same reason. This line of reasoning could be easily extended into saying that the author of the message thought that IDG should produce a "Sendmail for Dummies (R)" is the same thing.
You do have to see it from their point of view, though. Xerox (R) has had the same problem for years because people say "why don't you xerox a copy of that for me." When things become common usage, the company can lose their trademark rights. The message from IDG mentions Aspirin. Aspirin used to be a trademark of (I think) Bristol-Meyers but they lost that because people began referring to any headache pills as aspirin. Now anyone and their mother can all their product aspirin.
AOL is a trademark of America Online, Inc. Dodge, Viper and DaimlerChrysler are trademarks or registered trademarks of DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Corvette, GM and General Motors are trademarks or registered trademarks of General Motors Corp. Mustang is a trademark for Ford Motor Company. IDG and
Re:IDG has to do this (Score:2)
Noncommercial use is NOT dilution, period. (Score:5)
Hopefully this can be easily resolved ... (Score:5)
They explained the issue in non-threatening, plain english, and requested -- not demanded -- that the site be changed.
Such civil behavior should be commended! Especially in this day and age.
What is at issue here is the 1996 Federal Trademark Anti-Dilution Law -- the sort of law that makes lawyers' eyes dance with visions of long trials and big paychecks. It's a very vague law.
This law provides special protection to "famous" trademarks -- and the definition of "famous" is left to be battled over in court.
In summary, you are perfectly free to start a company to manufacture "Apple Golf Balls" without infringing on Apple Computer's trademark, because, basically, Apple's holds the trademark for the word "apple" in computer products/services, but they never manufactured golf balls. That's why "Clue Computing" can coexist with Hasbro's "Clue" game. Clue Computing trades in computer products/services, while Hasbro trades in board games. Trademark ordinarily refers to the combination of a mark, and a specific trade.
Under the new law, this does not apply to "famous" trademarks. So, you could not start marketing "Kodak Golf Balls", because the court would rule that since the trademark "Kodak" is so deeply associated with the Kodak film company, the word "Kodak" on other products, such as golf balls, would create market confusion. If you saw "Kodak Golf Balls" in a store, you would probably think, "When did Kodak start manufacturing golf balls?"
What IDG is claiming is that their "... for dummies" trademark is now so famous that anything in the world with "... for dummies" will cause market confusion with their line of books, etc.
Whether this is true or not would be a matter for the courts to decide. However
One provision of the 1996 law states that in order for use of a famous trademark to be dilutive, the defendant must make commercial use of the mark. I don't think that IDG would be able to prove this, because I don't think that it happened.
They were under the mistaken impression that the "... for dummies" title was the name of a chat room. If this was the case, then they MIGHT have a case, if they could show that the person who created the chat room was attempting to draw in readers, by using the public association between the "... for dummies" trademark with the idea of a tutorial book aimed at beginners, and was providing a tutorial work on Sendmail.
However, this was a simple message in a message thread, where the author idly wishes for a "Sendmail for dummies" book, that does not exist. There's no commercial use of the mark. The author of the article wasn't using the mark to draw in readers, or to sell products.
So I think that IDG isn't justified in pursuing the matter.
Reference:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/ma
Section 1125(c)4(B) (Score:2)
Section 1125(c)4:
The following shall not be actionable under this section:
...(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
New book (Score:4)
"The complete idiot's guide to copywright law for dummies in a nutshell in 21 days and 24 hours."
Let the cease & desist orders begin
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
Daniel.
Re:no more for me... (Score:3)
I am *completely* against mis-use of the trademark laws, and a lawyer who so blatantly misrepresents them should be disbarred. Trademark law is available on-line, so even non-lawyers like us can discover relevant sections at this site. [cornell.edu]
Check out Sect 1125, in particular the very end:
(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative
commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing
goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
This qualifies under both (B) and (C) as *non*-actionable.
They don't have much choice, do they? (Score:3)
This is exactly the sort of zero-discretion legislation that's making things so much fun in the workplace and school. "Hi, we're human, we can think, but would prefer not!"
And, besides, you have to admit that this is a very polite message. "We understand why you're doing this, but we can't let you do this, and here's the reasons why. Can we be amicable about this?" (Well, amicable for lawyers, anyways.)
I can't wait (Score:3)
Moderate me down. I'm off-topic and using foul-language.
Re:no more for me... (Score:2)
Excuse me.... But wouldn't it be smart to ENCOURAGE people to talk about your product / line of books?
Perha[ps they haven't read 'Public Relations for Dummies' ?
Why trademark dilution is not a Good Thing(tm) (Score:2)
Any effort Wham-O [wham-o.com] put into marketing the Frisbee is lost. Now they probably don't sell many, since so many other companies sell competing products and nobody differentiates them based on brand.
Don't post on this topic! (Score:2)
Do you know how many times each of you have infringed this trademark?
Resist the urge, don't say it! They'll take your house, your car, and your pigs!
This is a discussion forum! Aaaahhhhhhh!
:) Silly lawyers...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Re:Very poor (Score:2)
Re:I'm with IDG on this one. (Score:3)
Re:IDG has to do this (Score:2)
Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:5)
Here is what I am probably going to reply with. [skylab.org]
Any comments on that?
The Idiot's Guide to/for Dummies... (Score:2)
jf
Sense of Humor for Dummies (Score:2)
When pinheaded lawyers simply cruise the web for trademarks looking for people to sue its a good bet the president of the company needs to buy "Managing for Dummies".
When there aren't checks and bounds on emails such as this sent out of a company the size of IDG its a good bet that someone in the company needs to read "Setting Standard Operating Procedures for Dummies".
When IDG fails to appologize for the obvious faux pax its a good bet thier public relations department needs to read "Eating crow for Dummies".
And in case my spelling is at its usual worst, you can bet our bottom dollar that I haven't read "Spelling for Dummies".
I agree with them... to an extent (Score:3)
I do see their point... but what they're trying to do is restrict the use of '...for dummies' in conversation, i.e. in common speech. The use of '...for dummies' in the mailing list does not smack of deliberate infringement - simply of using the phrase to indicate the level at which the content is aimed.
In other words, '...for dummies' has become incorporated into our language to some extent. It's pointless to try to combat that by preventing people using it as a generic term in their everyday lives.
I could suggest that general use of the term amounts to free advertising, but I'm sure IDG regards trademark erosion as too great a threat to consider that an advantage.
SA.
Re:Why does this not surprise me? (Score:3)
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Slashdot in trademark violation (Score:4)
'IDG and 'Trademark Dilution' For Dummies'. And this is alot more like a chat room than the mailing list.
Slashdot for Dummies (Score:2)
How to get sued for dummies (Score:2)
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
1) Blow me.
2) OK, I'll make sure I never say "...for Dummies" again.
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
We need an Amnesty International for the Internet (Score:2)
I think organizing an action like this would be very effective, but it would probably be sufficient just to let them know they've got a lot of people pissed at them.
The calculation behind this kind of behavior is this. My trademark is probably not (actually almost certainly is not) being infringed, but if it is infringed later, the defense could slip this into to a pile of evidence that my trademark is invalid. If I lose my trademark, it will cost me a lot, so its worth while to have my lawyer send these folks a threatening letter to save me aggravation later.
This is bad high school debate club tactics. Don't let any point go ever.
What's missing in this calculation is the force of public reproach. Let's allow that the alleged infringment weakens the value of the trademark in some kind of vague and indirect legal way. On the other hand, indiscriminate use of legal threats should damage the trademark in a direct commercial way, to wit: making the public think the trademark's holder is a shmuck.
To that end, polite (so you don't get branded as a red or a member of the lunatic fringe) letters are the most effective tool to fight this.
This is how the Amnesty International model works. Bad behavior, be it tyranny, infringement of free speech, or garden variety alcholism thrives in secrecy, and depends on people not noticing.
Here's what you do... (Score:4)
Maybe Douglas Adams isn't such an asshole.
--JT
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:2)
From:
Matthew Leo
11:33
Subject:
Legal harrasment of skylab.org by IDG trademark department
To:
heidi_creighton@idg.com
Dear Ms. Creighton
It has come to my attention that Ms. Isabelle Drewelow of your trademark
department has issued a cease and desist letter against the maintainer
of an e-mail list archive at "skylab.org". The substance of the
complaint is that somebody on a Linux user group mailing list posted a
message, titled "SMART_HOST for Dummies", in which he opined that
somebody, presumably IDG, should publish a "Sendmail for Dummies" book.
This was subsequently archived, along with all the other messages posted
to that e-mail list at skylab.org, as part of a routine ongoing public
service rendered by that organization to the Linux community.
While I fully appreciate the need and right of trademark holders to
defend their trademark against infringement or dilution, this action by
any reasonable standard is overzealous to the point of absurdity.
First, the original poster was merely making a comment that IDG should
in fact include this title in their "Dummies" product line. Second, it
was made in a non-commercial context, and thus is protected speech under
the first amendment. Finally to go after the maintainer of an archive
is unreasonable in the the extreme. Should he undertake to edit his
archive, he would in fact increase his exposure to legal action by
overzealous holders of intellectual property.
It is incumbent on me to mention that I learned of the imbroglio by
reading the web site "www.slashdot.org", which is also read by literaly
tens of thousands of influential technical professionals every single
day. Should IDG obstinately maintain this unreasonably aggresive
stance, I feel certain that many of them, as I, would no longer
recommend and purchase IDG product, services or meetings.
Very truly yours,
Matthew F. Leo
This isn't unprecedented for IDG (Score:5)
The original book for dummies (Score:2)
Anyway, it's Auto Repair for Dummies, by Deanna Sclar, and it's a classic. Too bad Deanna didn't get on IDG's butt about the title...
On the other side, a friend of mine is one of the authors of the Windows 98 Bible [amazon.com]. Then IDG decides to call their book by the same name, even though they were asked to change the name of their later book.
Personally, I would tell IDG to go to hell.
IANAL but.... (Score:2)
This is my post... for Dummies (Score:2)
I hope no one goes through all my old mailing list posts and sends me threatening letters for every (TM) and (R) I forgot to put next to every product I ever mentioned... sigh.
A website that violates every trademak (Score:3)
this [fuckingsucks.net] or maybe this [fuckingsucks.net] or quite possibly this [fuckingsucks.net].
You get the picture.
Fill in ad-infinitum with the trademark of your choice and send the resulting url to any lawyer who is giving you a hard time, and tell them to shut down that site first.
Re:no more for me... (Score:2)
Like this; "I just read 'Cornholing Sheep For Dummies.' Best book on the subject I've seen. 'For Dummies' is a tradmark of the IDG Corp. You should check it out!
Slashdot's the real violator? (Score:2)
What exactly does IDG expect people to do? Not use the phrase "for dummies" without footnoting it in private email? Hunt down every recipient of that email to make sure none are making a public archive of it? Or since they're going after the archiver, do they expect him to run every mail message through a million-entry trademark pattern search before converting it to HTML?
Ironically, though the title of this Slashdot article could be considered an infringement, and isn't an automatic archive of a random email, but was a deliberate word choice by an employee of Andover, a for-profit corporation. If IDG's lawyers don't drop out of hypersensitive mode soon, I know whom they're writing to next...
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:3)
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:5)
That aside, I really doubt these folks want a fight. They are legally obligated to protect their trademark. What are they going to get out of suing you? Bad publicity and lawyers fees?
So give then an excuse to back off. That way, they can say they did their bit to defend their trademark, and they leave you alone.
The obvious excuse is to invoke common carrier status. Point out that you do not create this content, you are simply providing a medium to disseminate it. If you start editing/deleting messages, you just lost that status. Which would be very bad from a liability point of view, because it would open you to lawsuits just like this one.
You might also want to remove the reference to "trigger-happy lawyers". No need to antagonize 'em. Don't assume they're the enemy until they prove it.
It's pre-diluted. (Score:3)
This doesn't make the need for them to defend it less pressing, naturally. It does make their defense of it more reprehensible, in my eyes:
"That phrase you used to use? Stop using it. It's ours, now. Thank you."
DO NOT REPLY! for Dumies... (Score:3)
If you remove it you are essentially agreeing that you did something wrong.
No matter what you do, DO NOT send that written assurance. Once you send them that they will actually gain legal grounding to prosecute you in a court of law. (If you happen to slip up in the future)
Besides, after all the backlash they get from this article they may think twice about it.
Too bad the "...for Idiots" books are doing a good enough job of diluting their trademark. (For a while I thought they were published by the same group)
Re:Here is my potential reply... comments? (Score:3)
Reason: Lawyers don't like to be insulted. Although others feel they would not be nearly as polite, I caution you to be even more so. Both security and lawyers DO NOT have a sense of humor.
First: change the subject.
IDG has too many lawyers will probably be offensive. Maybe "Trade mark problem" or something that is just a topic and not a statement.
Second: It's good up to the point of since anyone else who published that title would get a rather nasty letter from IDG's trigger-happy lawyers)
Again, this is insulting. Yes I'm being paranoid, but if you don't want to go to court, you should be paranoid.
The rest looks good. But again, others will probably disagree with me and say "tell them to blow me" but if you just want to be left alone, I would be as serious as possible. Politely tell them the mistake, and see if you can work things out. If you want to make a scene, then you better becareful or they will sue you.
Steven Rostedt
Re:Why trademark dilution is not a Good Thing(tm) (Score:2)
Wham-O's mistake was probably in stealing the name of it from the Frisby pie company to begin with; the origin of the Frisbee was that people would eat a Frisby pie and then throw the tin around rather than returning it for a deposit. So they were using an already-common term but slightly misspelled.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
If one respects the idea of I.P. ... (Score:2)
For consistency, yes. But I'm glad you phrased it that way, because there is a huge school of thought that says that the very concept of intellectual property is bogus. I find the arguments presented very persuasive, so IDG's claim does not look all that convincing to me.