[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free

Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> writes:

> Martin Dickopp <martin-deb@zero-based.org> writes:
>> Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> writes:
>>> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:
>>>> By the way, this text seems to be gone.  (There are still some bogus
>>>> trademark claims on that page--IANAL, but I doubt a trademark allows
>>>> them to prevent people from using "sql-ledger" in domain names as long
>>>> as the use isn't confusing--but they probably don't affect the software,
>>>> or at least the name could be removed if it became a problem.)
>>> If Intel can [1], why not these guys?
>>> [1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/54177
>> Anybody can make atrocious claims, but that doesn't necessarily mean
>> they have a point. Although Intel asked the owner of the domain
>> "fehmarn-inside.de" to stop using the term "inside" until 31-Jan-2005,
>> the web site is still online and still has "inside" in the domain name
>> as well as on the web page itself.
> Good.  What about the other "inside" domains?

www.dvd-inside.de and www.movie-inside.de are still online and use the
term "inside" on the web pages. fotoinside.de has immediately changed
its name after having received Intel's threat.

>> That said, Intel's argumentation seems to be based on the fact that
>> "inside" is not a German word and therefore not a generic term in a
>> German language context. This argumentation wouldn't work in an
>> English language context.
> Considering the widespread use of English, even in
> non-English-speaking countries, this seems like a strange argument.
> Actually, I'd say the same for any common word, in any language.

I agree, but if I recall correctly, there have been cases in which
German courts have failed to recognize generic (technical) terms as such
because they were English words.


Reply to: