[ILUG] Redhat Licensing

[Ciaran Mac Lochlainn]

Timothy Murphy wrote:

>On Tuesday 04 May 2004 02:30, Rick Moen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>1.  With one legal exception that doesn't apply here, a mark is valid only
>>    within the trade or industry in which it's established.  Thus, you
>>    have every right to sell "Red Hat Lemonade" outside Matthew Szulik's
>>    window or anywhere else.
>>    
>>
>
>It would be nice if that were true, but I don't think it is.
>You will not be able to register eg "Coca Cola Shampoo" as a trade-name.
>The Registrar simply looks to see if there is a similar name in use.
>I don't think he inquires what that use is.
>  
>
AFAIK ( & IANAL) the issue is whether you're trying to "pass off" your 
product as being endorsed by RedHat or Coca-Cola.  If it's obvious 
you're not trying to fool people, you can have the same name.

>I think there are lots of examples of people being pursued
>for using a known brand-name well outside its original use,
>eg didn't the Beatles bring a case against Apple Computer,
>and who was it who sued Mobilix? I just recall it was some unlikely crowd.
>  
>
It was the makers of Asterix & Obelix who sued Mobilix, and I think they 
lost.  I think the Beatles lost too.



-- 
If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out
but tomfoolery.  But this tomfoolery, having passed through
a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one
dare criticise it.
                -- Pierre Gallois