RE: Would this be applicable to the API issue?
... I didn't notice any earlier mailings on this, so I'm coming in cold a
little. Trade dress in the US is like "passing off" in Australia. It doesn't
give you any more extensive protection than trade mark registration *e.g.
for the debian swirl* and is harder to prove, because with TM protection,
unlike 'trade dress'/passing off, you have to prove reputation in the
relevant trade or service mark.
... there's also the problem *at the risk of starting heated debate* that
the Debian web site layout is quite indistinctive ... and therefore a trade
dress infringement would be quite difficult to establish ... this is kinda
my area, so if you've got any queries, feel free to mail me.
ta
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Weiss [mailto:ajwdsp@cloud9.net]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 12:11 PM
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Would this be applicable to the API issue?
It seems as if this would bundle the Debian Swirl and the look of Debian's
website and cover any issues rather than dealing with it as copyright
infringement and/or trademark infringement.
Excerpt from an article dealing with Apple sueing Emachines for the eOne: on
MacWeek News
Trade dress
Trade dress is protectable as an unregistered trademark and is a subset of
trademark law and principles; it is designed to ensure that a product or
service's shape, appearance, color, packaging or even sales techniques are
not copied by a competing product. In the past, trade dress has been used by
an ironing-board maker to prevent competitors from duplicating its
distinctive green color and by Ferrari to block the production of
"replicars" that mimicked the shape of that company's distinctive cars.
A company filing a complaint of trade-dress violation must demonstrate two
things. First, it must prove that its trade dress is distinctive and linked
to the product's source in the mind of consumers. Second, it must show that
the competing product, by using the first company's trade dress, will likely
confuse customers into thinking that the competing company is affiliated
with the first company or that the competing goods are in some way approved
by it.
Some legal commentators, however, believe that Apple's cases are based not
on these factors but on related U.S. trade-dress statutes that protect trade
dress from dilution. Such cases don't depend on the likelihood of confusion
or direct competition; instead, they apply to any activity that reduces the
ability of the elements of the original product to signal the source,
quality or origin of the good and services associated with the product.
Regards,
Andrew Weiss
Director of Linux Development
Boxx International Corporation
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org <
/dev/null
Reply to: