On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the C+D,
didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers about advise
in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about it. It is not a
sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy
as trademark and copyright issues.
I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM
holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in
proximity of Google services. It's such a risible request. That's what
makes this delay so frustrating for the community as a whole!
Those of us in favour of publication are hardly 'screaming' for it.
(This includes all the 'armchair lawyers' and some of us who have some
real world experience dealing with the wonderful world of US and
Community TMs including disputing, filing and applying for invalidity).
Community members are requesting it as it impacts upon work they do,
there's no real reason to withhold the text of the notice. OSMF has no
real requirement to seek legal guidance prior to first publication, this
can be sought after initial acknowledgment of receipt, tailoring their
action accordingly.
Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D is
not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of
something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done something
wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that
Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.
Not that I support trademarking dictionary words, but obviously somebody do, and some patent
authorities accept. OSMF need to thread correctly into this matter, and temporarily removing
potentially material is one of the steps. As far as I can see, none of SimonPoole's edits are
actually redacting the matter in question, his edits are more a "first response",
like a "we have recieved your notice and prepare ourself for action. If this case turns
toxic maybe SimonPoole will have to redact the edits with the contaminated trademark, let us
hope it never comes to that.
The USPTO's mark awards have no jurisdiction outside of the States.
Geocode Inc.'s CTM was 'absolutely refused' on grounds of genericism
(prior art, if you will), by OHIM. This is an open-and-shut case!
Let us all also work together in this case to show support to OSM and OSMF and
do what can be done to undermine the claims from the issuer of the C+D in such
a way that any court cases will tip in favour of OSM continuing what we always
have done.
I like most others support the OSMF's contribution to the mapping
projects. OSM has made great progress over the past few years.
There's no need to do anything to undermine the issuer's claims, they
undermine themselves if they claim trade mark authority in Europe when
no such authority exists. To fully protect their reg mark, Geocode would
need to follow the procedures of the Madrid System and apply for an
International TM to cover ~70 territories where they wish to protect the
mark (including the USA).
OHIM handle Community Trade Marks for the EU (you can still register a
mark solely for the UK without it covering the EU which is what it looks
like Geocode tried to do). With it costing 600 Euros just to renew a CTM
for ten years, I expect they don't think it's worth their while to file
for an International trade mark... Given their existing refusal it's
reasonable to assume they'd never get it. Geocode are trade mark trolling!
I would very much like to see the C+D myself as I find the claims (as far as I
have understood from the information already leaked) totally unacceptable, but
have put myself with patience, at least until SimonPoole and OSMF have had time
to get a formal advise from any legal partner.
Without seeing the specifics of the C&D (and now we're talking in
circles), I still believe that any legal counsel worth their salt would
instruct OSMF to refer Geocode to the response in Arkell v. Pressdram.
I'm willing to stake five of the Queen's English pounds on this ;-)
If the legal advice substantially differs, I'll double this £5 then
donate to the Foundation's fighting fund, and I'll become a paid-up OSMF
member. May still become an OSMF member to vote in the next Board elections.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk