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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
