"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are of course correct that trademarks are feild limited. However
my understanding is that the courts also tend to take into account the
likelyhood of confusion. [...]
Similarly if somebody tries to sell just about any product
using the current apple logo, they would likely
recive an injunction. [...]
If using the current Apple logo, I agree. However, many things sell
using the general image of a bitten apple. For example, the Bite
discount card for UK transport station food http://www.bitecard.co.uk
I have no reason to suspect that its operator SSP has an Apple licence.
Yes, a bitten apple if it does not too closely resemble Apple Computer's
logo would not be a problem.
The State Museum of Pennsylvania is using *a* swirl, not debian's
particular swirl. What trademark could we hold that would cover the
use of the State Museum of Pennsylvania?
Most likely none.
However, I would not be shocked if a judge did rule
that the other spiral was so similar to ours that it could cause confusion.
I mean, if one was not directly compairing the two, one could easily draw
the incorrect conclusion that they are the same.
In this case though, I would tend to agree that few people would think that
the Museum is in some way cnnected to the
Debian project.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
