Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the > right thing. Apologies to anyone offended. > > Christopher Woods (IWD) writes: > > 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. > > Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having allowed > generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their trademark > was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a Google > geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible. > > Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do, > because there is no way to link to that service without infringing > their trademark (claim). > > My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands. > > > 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. > > The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's > *Google*.
If they have, indeed, allowed the generic use of the term "geocode" for 12 years without challenging it, then I believe that, under US law, the term is now legally classed as generic, and can be used by anyone. According to <http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Trademark_infringement>, while there is no Federal law explicitly stating a statute of limitations, one Federal court decided that such cases were subject to the general five-year limit for non-capital offenses under Title 18 of the US Code. Usually, the Federal courts follow the precedents set by the most similar state case. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
