Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
MJ Ray wrote:
> Don't trademarks apply even less to included executable file names than to
> package names? They're not even used to label anything supplied in trade.
> They are names of controls used to operate the machinery. I could call my
> firm's new car model 'steering wheel' and trademark it, but could I then go
> sue other makers for labelling a control in their cars 'steering wheel'?
In your example of the Steering Wheel trademark for cars versus
steering wheels in cars, a steering wheel is a functional name,. That
makes it entirely appropriate to refer to any steering wheel as a
steering wheel.
What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. There
are web browsers, distinguished by names such as Firefox, Iceweasel,
Opera and Internet Explorer. When a user does "apt-get install firefox"
he is not saying "I want to install a firefox", but "I want to install
the browser with the name Firefox".
It is true that a purely functional indication cannot be affected by a
trademark. So if something cannot function without having part of it
named ``firefox'', then that would not be trademark infringement. But
from what I have seen so far, the only reason the package is called
``firefox'' is because people know Firefox better than Iceweasel. In
that case the name is used in the trademark sense.
If other components of the system rely on the presence of a Web browser
and they only use the hardcoded string ``firefox'', then I would
consider that a bug in those components rather than a justification for
calling the Iceweasel package ``firefox''. But perhaps I missed
something?
Arnoud
(trademark attorney but TINLA)
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: