intel wants "inside" websites to be removed

[LigH]

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/51400 (german)

intel wants the domains of websites like http://www.dvd-inside.de/ or http://www.movie-inside.de/ to be removed, because they may ruin their slogan "intel inside"...

Does intel rather ruin itself by demanding that?! :sly:

[neo75903]

idd, this is ridicilous. Same as M$ did a while ago with the most famous one "Lindows".
It clearly says DVD and not related to them at all.
Can i also suit Intel when i have a company and make an intensive promotion for my product as being 'INTELligent'.

[Cyberman]

Could they do that? "Inside" is not a word they could register, as it´s not made up but a real english word.
I don´t think they could win that case.

[neo75903]

how about windows as m$ did with a few websites?

[Mug Funky]

didn't donald trump try to register "you're fired" or something? i don't follow reality TV.

that's bullshit. intel should get back to making chips.

[Sirber]

Yep! Markting sucks, we want hardware!!! :D

[FreaQ]

Originally posted by Cyberman
Could they do that? "Inside" is not a word they could register, as it´s not made up but a real english word.
I don´t think they could win that case.

It is not about the word "inside". It is about the marketing slogan "Intel Inside". Intel and its laywers think that any other Slogan which begins with a noun and ends with "inside" (e.g. "DVD-Inside") weaks their own slogan.

But never the less Intel and its laywers did it again.
They forced the german website www.fotoinside.de to shut down.
German News here: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/51458

The laywers of Intel think that they are very fair to site owners, because they just warn the owners. So there are no costs for the owners in first place. Only if they do not follow this "warning" Intel will go further steps.

[neo75903]

The worst thing of all is that those web sites dont have the cash to pay lawyers to defend them.
So far justice for everyone.

[Joe Fenton]

This is nothing new for Intel. Just a couple months ago they were going after websites with "intel" as part of the name. For example, they tried to get a company called Intel7 to change their name - even though it was an intelligence service which had been using that name since before Intel existed. :rolleyes:

American super-companies really suck right now. They think they own the world because they own US politics.

[Doobie]

Lindows ultimatly lost its fight with Microsoft. Now, they're Linspire and just another Linux distro without the clout of Lindows. Still, I doubt anyone who uses "inside" has anything to worry about.

[neo75903]

I think that companies who cannot afford an lawyer must have an public lawyer assigned for them like in civil cases.
This is the only way smaller EU companies can have a chance to stand against US companies like M$ and Intel who threatens to throw their Lawyer dogs.

[DAvenger]

What about firing all those lawyers and giving us cheaper CPUs? ;)

[Cyberman]

Originally posted by neo75903
how about windows as m$ did with a few websites?

"Windows" can be seen as a name, and "Microsoft" could be considered a made-up word. "inside" though is neither a name("Pentium" is), nor is it made up.

Originally posted by FreaQ
It is not about the word "inside". It is about the marketing slogan "Intel Inside".

Yes, but the only part they should be able to protect is the "Intel" part. "Inside" is a regular word, I think it´d be hard to prove that any noun-verb construction that makes use of the verb "inside" is a copyright-infringement.

What if I called a site "junk outside"? Would they try to force it down too?

[neo75903]

erm i consider windows also as an regular word, and so is apple.
I have respect for m$ for using the name windows, but they also have to realize they caint push it to far. Otherwise the whole right on regular words are at stake.

[Joe Fenton]

Trademarks can be ordinary words. Wal-Mart trademarked the word "always."

[neo75903]

Doesnt that cause problems with "always" >>
http://www.always.com

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by neo75903
Doesnt that cause problems with "always" >>
http://www.always.com

That is a product name, while WalMart uses it as a slogon. I can see someone suing over this at some point. Maybe WalMart has paid them not to sue. :D

The whole point was that "normal" words are fair game for trademarks. It depends on how it is used as to whether the trademark can be protected. For example, I doubt a maker of glass windows could get a trademark on the word "window".

[adam]

Trademarks and service marks can be held in words/phrases/images etc... which are arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive, without the showing of secondary meaning (that the public has come to associate the name with the product or service.) Apple is an example of an arbitrary and fanciful trademark, not because apple is an uncommon or made up word, but because it is not in any way descriptive or suggestive of a computer. Assuming Apple was just now starting up, if you saw a generic box with the word Apple on it, you would not necessarily assume it would have to do with computers. But since you would likely associate that box with actual apples, apple growers/distributors could not have any protection in the word apple, since it is considered "general" in that situation. As a use based system, Trademarks depend as much on the context in which the mark is used, as they do on the substance of the mark itself.

If the thing to be trademarked is merely descriptive then it requires secondary meaning in order to be protected. This would apply to Windows, since it has been held to be descriptive of the windowed style gui. Needless to say, Windows has plenty of secondary meaning in the marketplace. But since it is merely descriptive it can still be used by other manufacturers if necessary to describe their own product. This is what happened with Lindows. Its used to run windows products in Linux...what else are you going to call it? Lindows merely describes what the product does and so it does not infringe on the Windows trademark. Lindows did not change their name to Linspire by court order. In fact, they were successful in every one of the many suits that Microsoft filed. Eventually they just ran out of money to keep fighting, because everytime Microsoft would lose they would just file another suit in another country. I would imagine that Intel could easily use the same pressure tactics.

I would also think that "Intel Inside" is merely descriptive too. Lots of products are used internally and aren't visible when used. It just makes sense to have some logo or phrase that can be used on the visible part, to describe the internal part. Like "Powered by V-Tec." You can't keep others from describing what's inside their case, or car, or website, or whatever. Sounds like a real weak position to me, but all it takes is a letter on fancy letterhead to convince some people not to bother fighting. If this goes to court I imagine Intel will lose.

[LigH]

The point behind it is not "does it make sense", or "is it fair / legal / ethical", it is just about "can a small company afford the law suit to protect itself from this attack". Most of the domain owners are not even a company, just a private person. They don't have the money to sue against their ruin.

Using the same principle (one may be justified, but can't afford it), a big corporation may use a technology patanted by a small company, because the small company cannot afford to sue the corporation without ruining itself.

In german: "Recht haben" (to be justified) <> "Recht bekommen" (becoming entitled)

[Soulhunter]

Whats with a defense insurance... :confused:


Bye

[FreaQ]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Whats with a defense insurance... :confused:
Bye
In Germany the insurance companies do not pay in domain disputes.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by FreaQ
In Germany the insurance companies do not pay in domain disputes.

Gah, are they good for anything else than disputes with ya neighbors... :rolleyes:


Bye

[neo75903]

totally agree with your description, caint find the words better then you did.

[LordRPI]

Another RPI spurred company gone wrong... Marcian "Ted" Hoff, the inventor of the integrated circuit, is revered like a god among engineering students at RPI as it is where he completed his education. I wonder if I'll ever get notified by RPI (http://www.rpi.edu) to change my handle.