WTF is wrong with Adobe these days, some of their actions
anymore are complete bullshit including this one.
Trademarks have to be actively protected or they risk losing them and having
the term become generic. Unfortunately, this means shutting down the ones
that benefit you as well as those
The other day I was stading in front of the mirror flexing my muscles. Adobe
sent me a cease and desist notice. Apparently I can no longer flex my
muscles since Flex is trademarked. I'm only allowed to tighten my muscles
now.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Justin Scott
How is this actively protecting their trademark?
It's not stealing business away from them it is actually supplying business to
them.
If this is how they are now playing the game then all you with sites and blogs
with coldfusion in the name better be ready understanding to stop using
Since trademarks only need to be protected within the same industry
category, Adobe has no need to protect you from Flexing.
(As they know developers have no muscles to Flex)
Flashing, on the other hand, is a constant worry.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Dave l cfl...@jamwerx.com wrote:
How is this actively protecting their trademark?
This is pretty standard practice for many companies.
If this is how they are now playing the game then all you with sites and
blogs with coldfusion in the name better be
I wonder - is there any concept in trademark law for getting official
approval? Ie, could Adobe issue a legal document saying siteX has
permission to use Flash in the name? That allows it to 'respond' to
all trademark violations but allow community sites to keep it since
they have official
I think it can be simpler than that, if the site in question clearly states
that the main trademark is the property of the main company, and this
product is not officially affiliated at all, and that this company makes no
claim on the main trademark, most bigger companies won't pursue the
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Dave l wrote:
This week Adobe asked us to change our name and URL so that it would no
longer contain the term Flash, which is a registered trademark of Adobe.
So are they going to request every web site that has flash in it to do
this? I just don't get
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Camden rcam...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder - is there any concept in trademark law for getting official
approval? Ie, could Adobe issue a legal document saying siteX has
permission to use Flash in the name? That allows it to 'respond' to
all trademark
I doubt it would stand up in court. Whether or not it would or wouldn't I just
don't see Adobe's point in this at all. So what if they are making money off of
it. They are making money off of what was made with it not the actual flash
product. That's saying if you make money off of building
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Dave l cfl...@jamwerx.com wrote:
I doubt it would stand up in court. Whether or not it would or wouldn't I
just don't see Adobe's point in this at all.
The point is entirely about protecting their trademark. Period. I
understand you have an axe to grind
Well from the fallout Adobe is getting all over the web right now I can't see
how this is protecting their trademark, they are taking a windoz type bashing.
Even funnier is that they are advertising on some of the envatos sites.
But serious.. my grinding ax or not, how is this protecting their
Whether you agree with it or not, the _rule_ is that if you don't go
after all uses, then you aren't defending your trademark. It doesn't
matter if you like it Dave. That's just the rule. So if they play nice
and ignore them, and EvilFlash comes along and they try to take them
out, then EvilFlash
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Dave l cfl...@jamwerx.com wrote:
But serious.. my grinding ax or not, how is this protecting their
trademark?
All done repeating myself.
Good luck.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion
Its fairly easy to invalidate a trademark if in the court case the
defendant can show that the company did not adequately defend the
trademark. By showing that they allowed a couple of infringements may
result in the entire case being tossed out. So Adobe is just engaging
in a CYA effort.
On
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Dave l cfl...@jamwerx.com wrote:
But serious.. my grinding ax or not, how is this protecting their trademark?
How is this going to in anyway shape or form be a good move for adobe?
It's pretty damn simple.
If they lose their trademark, they're screwed. Lose
@ray
I'm not saying it isn't legal, I'm saying it's pretty screwed up on their part
and in this ecomomy were it is pretty important to keep every customer you can
they are sure crappin a lot in their bed lately.
If they were so concerned with this then why have they let that site run for 3
Next thing you know, they'll be after all the companies selling flashlights.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Dave l cfl...@jamwerx.com wrote:
WTF is wrong with Adobe these days, some of their actions anymore are
complete bullshit including this one.
There is a site that sells flash files
But in order for that to be the case then they would have sue every site with
one of their trademarks in it and they are not doing that, apparently just
select ones. If they do this every site then they might as well call it
silverlight cause they will have to sell it to ms when all their
It doesn't mean that no one can use it just because it's trademarked, the could
certainly give sites a usage lic as long as it isn't promoting their
competitors and like in this case where it actually promotes the adobe product
in a good way.
Whether you agree with it or not, the _rule_ is
20 matches
Mail list logo
