Met office stupidity

[tones]

Originally posted by HenryT
Oh OK! How about complete words like "Intel 80486"? Can that be trademarked, because I've often seen "Intel 80386 (TM)" or "Intel 80486 (TM)" credited in computer related manuals or technical documents I've used at work in the past.

By "trademarked", I presume you mean registered, i.e., you apply to a trade marks office and you actually acquire property in the mark. Answer: yes - the overall mark takes its distinctiveness (and therefore registrability) from the genuinely distinctive part of the mark (the word "Intel") and there will often be a requirement to disclaim exclusive rights to the number when used apart from Intel.

However, TM generally means that the thing is NOT registered! Intel is merely claiming this as its trade mark, i.e., it uses this mark to describe its goods, but it hasn't registered it. This is the safe option I use when I don't know whether a trade mark is registered, or if a document is going to be used in a variety of countries in not all of which the trade mark is registered. For example, if you're preparing a brochure in Spanish for use in Latin America, you don't use the R in a circle (indicating registration) against a trade mark, if you don't have a registration in Argentina.

 

[Dev]

Originally posted by tones
Michael, now I'm very suspicious about the story! I found no record in the USPTO Register of a registration or even an application of "901" in the name of Automobiles Peugeot S.A. The earliest registration of "901" is in the early '70s by the Bose Corporation.

A quick google search on Porsche 901 showed up a number of links. Here's one:-

http://www.klassiskebiler.dk/museum/indhold/tyskland/porsche/911/911.htm

There are countless others which recognise 901 as a Porsche in the sixties.

 

[michaelab]

Here's a better link:

http://www.motorbase.com/vehicle/by-id/182844839/

The legendary 911 first took a bow in 1963 and was actually built alongside the older, outgoing 356C. Originally the 911 was to be known as the 901, however French manufacturer, Peugeot, had already registered this name and Porsche were obliged to re-name their new baby - 911. Of coarse the model name 911 is now practically a household name across the world, it lives on in, albeit much changed format, production today.

Michael.

 

[tones]

There's no doubt that it was a 901, Dev, or at least intended to be, but I question the Peugeot trade mark story, which simply doesn't ring true. And if Porsche decided to change in the USA for whatever reason, it makes sense to adopt one common name worldwide (although I think Porsche was later to rename the 911 Turbo the 930 for the US market).

There may be circumstances in US trade mark law about which I know nothing that mean I've got it wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[michaelab]

And another one:

http://www.breithaupts.com/skpor901.htm

This is one of the earliest diecast Siku models and represents the birth of the Porsche 911 line. It is identified as a '901' as that was the initial Porsche model identification. Peugeot forced Porsche to change the model to '911' as Peugeot claimed the rights to all model numbers beginning with '90.'

..and another one (more officialy looking):

http://www.flat-6.net/view.php?model=901&sel=901&tab=info

A very interesting story is told by the roots of the 911. Originally, the first prototypes for the 911 were running around in 1963. They were powered by the same flat 6 engine that we've become accustomed to, but they weren't named '911'. The factory, in all their brilliance, decided to name the car '901'. However, once news broke of Porsche's new model, Peugeot realized that the news model's initial model identification conflicted with their copyrights.

You see, Peugeot claimed that they owned the rights to all model numbers which has the digit '0' in the middle of a three letter model name. Odd claim, but nevertheless the company insisted that Porsche was infringing their copyrights. They forced Porsche to change the name of their '901' to how we know it now, as the '911'. By the time the car was introduced as a production model in 1965, they were all known by the model designation 911, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Performance measures accomplished by the 901 prototype included a top speed of 131 MPH and an 8 second time through the 0-60 sprint. Even though Peugeot pounced very quickly on Porsche for using the 901 name, Porsche did manage to get a few 901's out on the road to customers before having to change the name to 911. The road going 901s are very few in number and highly collectible today.

...and another one:

http://home.tiscali.dk/8x118408/porsche/frame2uk.html

Porsche 911 was originally supposed to be called 901 when it was introduced in Frankfurt in 1963. But Peugeot had allready been there to claim the right to all tre digit number combinations with a zero in the middle. The brochures and the marketing canon had all the been printed 901 but was in a hury replaced with 911 - a number that means a lot to car enthusiasts to day. Actually there was only made 13 901's before it was renamed to what to day is a concept rather than just a car.
A thing to consider is that Peugeot did not mind that Porsche used the numbers 904 and 908 as long they were used only on racing car and not street cars.

...you get the picture

Michael.

 

[michaelab]

Just Google for "Porsche 901 Peugeot" and you'll be bombarded with links in every language telling pretty much the same thing.

Peugeot may not have legally had a leg to stand on and it's possible that Porsche just changed the name to 911 to avoid any hassles.

Michael.

 

[HenryT]

Originally posted by tones
TM generally means that the thing is NOT registered! Intel is merely claiming this as its trade mark, i.e., it uses this mark to describe its goods, but it hasn't registered it.

So, a TM mark doesn't imply an kind of legal clout?

Originally posted by tones
R in a circle (indicating registration) against a trade mark

Ah right, I understand the distinction now.

 

[tones]

"You see, Peugeot claimed that they owned the rights to all model numbers which has the digit '0' in the middle of a three letter model name. Odd claim, but nevertheless the company insisted that Porsche was infringing their copyrights. "

This is the sort of half-baked nonsense I see all the time. It has nothing to do with copyright, and Peugeot most certainly do NOT own the rights to all model numbers that comprise three digits with a zero in the middle (it apparently never complained about Mazda's 808, competing in the same market segment!).

As I said, I suspect that Porsche, having initially decided on the 901 designation, realised the possibility of confusion and changed voluntarily. (Or perhaps, as you say, Peugeot with is love of x0x numbers, had a general moan and Porsche decided it didn't need the hassle). Even the biggest companies goof - Esso, searching for a replacement for ESSO (which it could use in only 20-odd of the US states, courtesy of the Sherman Standard Oil antitrust split) nearly settled on an old company trade mark ENCO, and found out just in time that it meant "stalled car" in Japanese. And of course GM actually went ahead with the launch of the Chevy Nova without thinking what the word could mean in Spanish...

 

[tones]

Originally posted by HenryT
So, a TM mark doesn't imply an kind of legal clout?

Ah right, I understand the distinction now.

Correct - it may mean that there is no registration. However, depending on circumstances, there are other ways of enforcing rights. In common law countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia), use of a mark gives substantial rights, so a passing-off action can be brought against an infringer.

The R in a circle is actually only legally recognised in the USA and Sweden, but it is now universally accepted as a designation of registration.

 

[MO!]

Originally posted by domfjbrown
or even UKMO

Ahem!

Tone, aint it great coming home from work just to carry on talking about it?

Next question....

Is it true that Coca-Cola (and possibly BP) even have their shades of red (and green/yellow) copyrighted?

 

[tones]

Originally posted by MO!
Ahem!

Tone, aint it great coming home from work just to carry on talking about it?

Next question....

Is it true that Coca-Cola (and possibly BP) even have their shades of red (and green/yellow) copyrighted?

1. Yes, actually, I find it very interesting.

2. First of all, get the language right. Copyright is for works of literary and artistic merit (and popular music ). What you are asking is whether it is possible to register a particular colour as a trade mark. The short answer is yes. The trick of course is to define the colour unambiguously, because no trade mark office will grant a monopoly on a colour that other people could legitimately want to use. I don't know whether the particular cases you mention are registered, but, for example, Pink Batts are a well-known fibreglass-based roofing insulation in Oz, and the company succeeded in registering the particular shade of pink.

 

[tones]

P.S. MO!, if you want chapter and verse on the subject, try:

http://www.ladas.com/Trademarks/MakingSenseTM.html#color

It also gives interesting info on sound and scent marks.

Another area is shape marks. For many years, the Coke bottle was not registrable in the UK, because a mark had to be something applied to the goods, not the essence of the goods themselves. It could only be covered by a registered design, and designs only last for 16 years (a trade mark registration lasts forever, provided you keep coughing up the renewal fees at ten-year intervals). This changed with the 1994 Act and presumably the Coke bottle is now safely registered.

 

[tones]

Originally posted by penance

Wasnt there a case with MS a year or 2 ago when they tried to stop a company useing Lindows?

P.S.

The US District Court for the Western District of Washington has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Lindows.com to dismiss Microsoft's trademark infringement action on the grounds that Microsoft's mark WINDOWS is generic. The case will proceed to trial.

In December 2001 Microsoft filed a trademark infringement action against Lindows, seeking a preliminary injunction against the use of 'Lindows' as either a company or product name. The court denied the motion. It found that before Microsoft first announced its Windows product in 1983, the public understood the terms 'windows' or 'windowing' to refer to a type of graphical user interface or operating system feature. While the court did not conclude that Microsoft's WINDOWS mark is generic, it held that the presumption of validity attached to Microsoft's federal registration for WINDOWS had been rebutted.

In balancing the hardship between the parties with respect to the relief requested, the court found that Lindows had made a risky decision in choosing a mark so close to Microsoft's well-known WINDOWS mark, but that Microsoft had made an equally risky decision in 1983 when it named its product after a term commonly used in the information technology business. The court held that these decisions cancelled each other out and, therefore, the balance of hardship did not tip in Microsoft's favour on the preliminary injunction request. Lindows then moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss Microsoft's action on the grounds that the WINDOWS mark is generic.

In spite of the substantive evidence produced by Lindows, the court held that the issue of whether the term 'windows' is generic for a class of software is for a jury to decide. Therefore, it dismissed Lindows's motion.

The trial, first set for April 7, has been postponed until December 1.

(Now set down for March)


In Microsoft Corporation v Lindows.com Inc (Case T 21006-03), the Stockholm District Court has issued a temporary injunction enjoining Lindows from using the trademarks LINDOWS, LINDOWS.COM and LINDOWS.OS for goods and services relating to operating systems under penalty of a fine of Skr3 million ($412,000). This effectively blocks the distribution of Lindows's software in Sweden.

The court issued the injunction on the grounds that:

Microsoft is the owner of Swedish trademark registrations for WINDOWS, WINDOWS NT, WINDOWS WAREHOUSE and WINDOWS WORLD;


the trademark WINDOWS is used worldwide by Microsoft to identify its operating systems;


Lindows markets and sells an operating system in Sweden under the name LINDOWS; and


Microsoft had shown probable cause for trademark infringement, and it can be assumed that Lindows will continue the infringement and lessen the value of Microsoft's trademarks.
However, the court did not discuss its reasons for regarding the use of LINDOWS as infringing the WINDOWS trademarks.

The case will proceed to trial once Lindows has been served with the summons.

 

[domfjbrown]

Originally posted by MO!
Is it true that Coca-Cola (and possibly BP) even have their shades of red (and green/yellow) copyrighted?

Yes - kind of. The Met Office's logo uses specific Pantone numbers for the green and blue - it took us in the design studio AGES to go over all the bidders' proposed styles and ideas, and then EVEN LONGER to agree the colours. Once agreed, these were registered with the trademark, so I *believe* another company can't use them and the wobbly wave/hill device together without being "done".

Even then, getting the damn things to work on print, web and on TV/videotape was a total bitch - it took us all about 9 months from start to finish.

I KNOW Marlboro use VERY close tolerances on their red colour on their fag packets.

 

[tones]

Careful, Dom, there's a difference between registering a trade mark in colour and registering a colour as a trade mark. Trade marks offices are a whole lot fussier in the latter case, because the only distinctiveness is the colour itself, and precise definition is critical. I believe some have even used the Munsell system (used in the dyestuffs industry).