Hi Jim,
I am now have second thoughts both about simply acceding and about the
choice of a name. Your comments make a lot of sense. Maybe I can reach a
middle ground with J.D. Edwards. The best scenario would be if they
accepted our continued use of JDE. If they won't accept that, I would
prefer JDEE over JMode because it is a full acronym for the J(ava)
D(evelopment) E(nvironment) for E(macs). JDEE was my first choice but I had
discarded it as possibility because somebody had said that any acronym that
contained JDE would be considered an infringement. Your research seems to
suggest that it would be okay. I will try the approach that you suggest.
- Paul
At 06:25 PM 7/18/2001 -0500, Jim LoVerde wrote:
>OK, more legal research reveals the following. The basic
>defenses to trademark infringement claims are listed in 15
>USC 1115 (Title 15, Chapter 22, SubChapter III, Sec. 1115).
>See http://www.access.gpo.gov/ to browse the law. Quoting a
>portion of that section:
>
>
>> (4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an
>> infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party's
>> individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of
>> anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is
>> descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe
>> the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin; or
>>
>
>It would seem to me that JDE is a description of the Java
>Development Environment, and would fall under the category
>of fair use. I wonder if it wouldn't be worth replying to
>JD Edwards asking under what grounds, and which specific
>laws they feel the use violates. The basic tenant being to
>state that while you don't necessarily object to changing
>the name, you want to know the full details of why they feel
>your use is illegal. And you may want to provide the fact
>that you have been using the abbreviation JDE since 1998 (is
>that correct?). Furthermore, you could politely ask them
>for proof that they have indeed used the mark in commerce in
>compliance and/or has filed and received approval for the
>extensions of the "intent to use" of the currently
>registered trademark. (Refer to Title 15, Ch 22, Sub I,
>Sec. 1051 for rules regarding registration and intent to use
>extensions.)
>
>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
>resolution. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and perhaps my
>common reading of the law is flawed, but it seems to me that
>you're on pretty solid ground to retain the name and are
>well within your rights to ask for JD Edwards to provide
>proof that they indeed have complied with the requirements
>to secure the trademark, as well as what grounds they are
>using to contest your use of the abbreviation.
>
>I think the worst case next step would be that they file a
>federal request for an injunction which would legally force
>you to desist from using the name unless you contested in
>court.
>
>Also, despite the confusion there really should be any
>problem legally with JDEE (Java Development Environment for
>Emacs). There are currently no trademarks for that, and I
>don't think they can contest that at all. (I guess
>jmode-mode just rubs me the wrong way.)
>
>(Ironically, take a look at how many trademarks exist for
>TESS, which is the name used by the US Patent and Trademark
>office's "Trademark Electronic Search System").
>
>
>
>--
>****************************************************
>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]
>
>
