Interesting
Ruminating on a link from fixedgear
Skidmark: No. 7, Vol. 1 - Lancey-Pants.
First let me say, I agree with Shakespeare.
Second, there seems to be some truth on both sides. While IANAL, I do have a wee bit of experience in copyright and trademarks, so this bloger is mistaken when he says
The LAF didn’t copyright the name Livestrong until August 2005…In fact, the copyright hasn’t been officially finalized yet,
I’m sure he means “trademark” not “copyright”, and if the lawyer is really issuing a C&D for “copyright,” he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Still, it seems to be me to be a little counter productive for LAF to go around suing people like this while ignoring bazillions of other organizations doing the same thing. Or is it simply that both are involved with bikes? Or maybe he’s not ignoring the bazillions of others and is just starting here. (It might be a better use of time to start on eBay, though.)
OTOH, saying
No one, once, has commented on the Skidstrong name sounding like Livestrong. So when we were served papers a few weeks ago, it was literally news to us.
two sentences after saying
A local customer saw our yellow-rimmed wheels in the window, and said “Cool wheels! They remind of those new yellow bands! You should call them Skidstrong!” So we did.
is a little disingenuous.
OTOOH, permitting the dilution of a trademark is dangerous. A trademark owner has the obligation to defend the tradmark. In fact, it’s a requirement. (Setting aside for the moment that the trademark registration hasn’t been completed yet.) If you don’t defend it, you lose it. “Elevator” and “Aspirin” are two common examples of trademarks lost to common use. Defend it or lose it, and trademarks are expensive to get and keep.
In addition to the trademark argument, there’s also a “guilt by association” argument. There’s no way LAF can keep tabs on every other organization out there to make sure they’re not behaving in a way that could cause damage to their (LAF’s) reputation caused by being “confusingly similar” in name to whatever organization it might be. Is “Skidstrong” with yellow rimmed wheels “confusingly similar” to Livestrong with yellow wristbands (and yellow everything else)? (Think “Windows” v. “Lindows”). IRO sells yellow rims, too, so it’s not just that. From everything I’ve heard or seen, Skidstrong is a right fine product with a goal well worth supporting. But what if it weren’t? What if they were deceptively funneling money to tarists? Would or wouldn’t it damage LAF by having a name “confusingly similar”?
Still, though, it seems overzealous lawyering to me. But is there any other kind? And regardless of the merit of the argument, it makes LAF seem petty and vindictive. Kind of make you wonder if they might not sue TdF for using the color yellow.
That’s what I think. Sort of.
–me, principal, Finial® Software, Inc.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:16 pm
So the guy knowingly uses the similarity of his wheels to Armstrong’s (annoying) yellow wristbands AND gives even them a similar sounding name to sell them, and he’s surprised to get a C&D? Is he an idiot? Sounds like this is exactly what filing is for in the first place.
IANAL either, but my friend just happens to prosecute patents for the Patent Office, and I sent him this link to get his take on it.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Yeah, I really don’t think he has any grounds at all. He as much as says so.
Now, if we can just find a way to get rid of those ribbons on the backs of cars…
December 1st, 2005 at 6:57 pm
I think your analysis is spot-on. It is disingenuous for Boulanger to quote his customer with respect to “yellow rims!” and then say “gee it never ocurred to us.” The reason they are not chasing down pink bracelet makers for breast cancer awareness is that it’s not cycling. It’s trademark dilution.