MÃns RullgÃrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> MÃns RullgÃrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Martin
