You are correct regarding enforcement. Hence the reason that they sent
Paul the "cease and desist" notice. However, that only means that they
took a cursory glance at JDE, saw that there might be a conflict and took
the appropriate measure to notify the potential violator.
They are probably unaware of the duration of time that JDE has been used
as well as the details of what it really is and the fact that the full
name is "Java Development Environment". For these reasons it seems
perfectly valid to provide them with the facts regarding the product,
provide several possible solutions, and request further information with
regard to their ownership of the trademark, and which sections of the law
they are citing as a violation.
Possible solutions:
1. Obtain permission from JDE to continue to use the mark. (The owner of
a trademark is fully allowed to grant others permission to use the mark
while still retaining rights to it.)
2. Don't use the letters "JDE" in the logo, or at least incorporate the
full product name (which may very well be their largest objection).
3. Place a notice on the website referring users who errantly went to the
page to the JD Edwards site.
Again, I am not proposing replying to JD Edwards with a challenge.
Rather, I am proposing a request for further information. It seems to at
least be worth a try before jumping through a lot of hoops for something
that might be amicably worked out. One could also point out the bad
press companies have received for hitting open source projects and offer
to submit a story showing JDE as a counter example to that general trend.
I would not recommend asking them if JDEE is an acceptable name without
first changing the name of the product on the web site and getting formal
proof of use of the name (after which any future trademarking is
irrelevant due to common law). Otherwise, they could submit an ITU
trademark registration for the new name prior to that decision.
Rick Leir wrote:
> Jim LoVerde wrote:
>
> > I guess what I'm saying it that depending on the verbage of
> > the letter, it may still be possible to work out an amicable
>
> If you own a trademark but never enforce it, it loses validity.
> So, it might be worthwhile for JD Edwards to flex its muscles
> at us small fry just because we are an easy target, not because
> they are worried we would affect their business prospects.
>
> If we want to fight, the most effective way would be public ridicule.
> But it might be better to just accept a new name.
> cheers -- Rick
>
> --
> Rick Leir Supply Chain Solutions
> Pelyco Systems http://www.pelyco.com
> 613 226 6109 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
****************************************************
Jim LoVerde, Sr. Technical Architect
nVISIA, http://www.nvisia.com
voice: 312-985-8178 pager: 800-862-0399 #17086723
fax: 312-985-8101 epage: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
