Arnt > On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:48:52 -0000, Vivian wrote in message > <2E88AF8A470944229CC999467FDABD4D@MAIN>: > > > Jon, > > > > MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know. > > > > As I research this matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves > > unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK law. > > > > When a trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares > > in which business it trades within classes. > > ..in some jurisdictions, trade marks need merely be established, to > become enforceable. In others, established trade marks needs to be > registered before they become enforceable. Can of worms indeed.
Not at all - that is commonplace. So what? > > For example, Red Bull > > declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: > > > > http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 > > ..no? ;o) The language below can all be construed as relevant to > a "RB v FG" trademark on Red Bulls "computer game trademark", > square bracket comment [samples] are mine: > Class 09:Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, > cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking > (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; > electric apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for > recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; ... ; > magnetic data carriers, in particular video tapes, recording discs; > automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; > ... ; coin-operated fruit machines and entertainment > machines; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers > only; ... , calculating machines, data processing equipment > and computers; machine readable data carriers of all types with programs > installed; We would come under Class 09 - Computer Software - which is not listed as a trading activity by Red Bull. > Class 28:Games and playthings; ... ; electric or electronic games, > [..is FG a game? Can FG be run on non-electric things?] > including video games; ... ; practical jokes (novelties). > [..pranks? Or physical items to execute a prank? Or, are > they trying to trademark satirical etc jokes? Etc.] We are not a Game or Plaything, certainly NOT an "electronic game" > Class 35:Advertising, in particular promotion of the aforesaid goods > and of competitive events, including competitive events of a sporting > nature; arranging of advertising; distribution of goods for advertising > purposes; ... > [..product "placement"?] What has this got to do with us? > Class 41:Education; providing of training; entertainment, in particular > musical performances and radio and television entertainment; sporting > and cultural activities, in particular the staging of sports > competitions; organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs for cultural > and educational purposes; rental of video tapes and cassettes, video > tape film production. We don't do education do we? > > Class 42:... ; scientific and industrial research; exploitation of > industrial property rights; technical consultancy and providing of > expertise; computer programming; ... Class 42: Services - which you omitted to say - we don't offer any services. > ..yes, it's overbroad, RB tries to trademark jokes on themselves, and > yes, IBM is still waiting to clear its name slam dunk style, and case > law will tell you guys, satire is our safest defense, despite all it's > flaws, Red Bull is neither Microsoft nor tSCOG. Do we need any such defense? There is no sensible overlap between our business activities and those registered by Red Bull. But I chose that only as an example. > > This is the official UK government site, so I think we can take that > > as good evidence. UK law conforms to European and International > > standards: the classes are set by international agreement. I would > > expect US law to be very similar. If we think of ourselves as a > > computer game, I don't think we are liable to any action by Red Bull, > > or pretty much anyone else on _trademark_ grounds. If on the other > > hand we believe that we are a software flight simulator, then we are > > getting closer to, for example, Boeing business activities. > > > > Copyright, hmm ..., the laws on copyright are draconian. > > ..yes, but more uniformly so, so they are easier to > live with and to enforce on e.g. GPL violations. > > > That's hornets nest that I'm not going to poke with a stick. > > > > ..neither is Microsoft ;o) ... except by tSCOG etc proxies... > Well, that's good to know Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
