LuKreme wrote: > On 15-Oct-2009, at 12:40, Adam Katz wrote: >> They've been very gracious to our community so far, > > Since they stopped trying to sue everyone? > > No wait, they didn't stop, they just lost their lawsuits. > > Yeah, not really seeing that 5 year legal battle with SpamArrest as > gracious, myself. I suspect SpamArrest and there more than > $500,000 in legal bills would agree. Neither would other victims of > Hormel's sue-happy camp of lawyers (EarthLink, Postini, et al). > > Gracious?
If they were not gracious, they would have taken a firmer stance against any use of their SPAM brand pertaining to email. Hormel's policy has always been to protect their trademark. They do NOT otherwise object to the non-capitalized use of the word "spam." Wikipedia sums it up nicely: > Hormel does not object to the term, but insists that it be spelled > in lower case so as to distinguish it from its capitalized SPAM > trademark. Hormel objects to Spam's "product identity" (for > example, images of Spam cans) being used in relation to spamming, > and has filed lawsuits against companies which have attempted to > trademark words containing "Spam". If you own a company trying to *trademark* something with the word "Spam" in it (e.g. "SpamArrest"), that infringes upon their trademark. If you own a company with a product with the word "Spam" in it and you don't try to trademark it (e.g. SpamAssassin, SpamCop), they won't pursue (as it would be along fair use law rather than trademark law). If a company wanted to register a trademark like "Lewis Butler Productions," you (LuKreme, Lewis Butler) would be able to sue them for infringing the implicit trademark you own on your name. You'd have a lot harder a time suing a company to rename a product called "Lewis Butler Filter."
