[ILUG] Redhat Licensing

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Timothy Murphy (tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie):

> It would be nice if that were true, but I don't think it is.
> You will not be able to register eg "Coca Cola Shampoo" as a trade-name.

Remember I said "one legal exception"?  I didn't mention it because 
(1) it didn't apply to the situation being discussed, and (2) it was a
matter of USA statutory law, not EU:  Ever since 1995 legislation, the
very most famous and distinctive marks -- pretty much limited so far to
Coca Cola, Kodak, Reebok, and Xerox -- have been entitled to the legal
presumption that any third-party use of their marks is "confusing to the
customers".  But marks must pass fairly stringent tests to qualify.

(Note, also, that in common law countries, marks need not be registered
to be established.)

Once again:
"Trademarks" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law

> I think there are lots of examples of people being pursued
> for using a known brand-name well outside its original use,
> eg didn't the Beatles bring a case against Apple Computer,

That was because of _music_ support in MacOS, i.e., within the same
trade or industry, and allegedly likely to confuse Apple Records's
customers.

> and who was it who sued Mobilix? I just recall it was some unlikely crowd.

Publishers of Asterix and Obelix, i.e., within the same industry
(publishing), and allegedly likely to confuse the trademark holder's
customers. 

Thank you for supporting my point.  ;->

-- 
Cheers,     Founding member of the Hyphenation Society, a grassroots-based, 
Rick Moen   not-for-profit, locally-owned-and-operated, cooperatively-managed,
rick at linuxmafia.com     modern-American-English-usage-improvement association.