Re: State Museum of Pennsylvania - Debian copyright infringement?

["Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>]

"MJ Ray" <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message 
news:46a46e7f.cKpSuKp9a4Q0XBEa%mjr@phonecoop.coop...
> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> > * MJ Ray:
> > > If they made their logo independently and aren't using it for
> > > software, is there a problem?
> >
> > Yes, if the swirl was a trademark, it would still be trademark
> > infringement.
>
> What trademark class could we hold on the swirl that would cover the
> use of the State Museum of Pennsylvania?  Arguing distinctiveness of
> swirls in general seems unlikely to work IMO.
>
>  "The registration of a trademark includes an indication of the goods
>  or services which it is intended to protect. This means that, in
>  principle, others are free to use the trademark for other goods or
>  services."
>  Source: http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/

First sorry for the late reply.

You are of course correct that trademarks are feild limited. However
my understanding is that the courts also tend to take into account the 
likelyhood of confusion.
For example if one were to try to sell Microsoft toilet paper, Microsoft 
Corp. would almost certainly be granted
an injuntion. Similarly if somebody tries to sell just about any product 
using the current apple logo, they would likely
recive an injunction. Apparently the limited field issue is more meant for 
only semi-creative names and phrases, as picturemarks or highly unique names 
tend to be enforced in a wider set of areas.  I personally have no issue 
with this other than the fact that it seems to conflict with the written 
law, as there is a very real posibility of confusion in many of these cases.


> Puzzled,
> --
> MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
> Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
> Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
> Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/