__/ [ Big Bill ] on Monday 14 August 2006 20:29 \__
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:50:33 -0500, Karl Groves
> <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>"T.J." <no1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>news:e4qdnVnLt-T1L33ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@xxxxxx:
>>
>>>
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:2083223.MgGiKxoiSl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> To google or not to google? It's a legal question
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Search engine giant Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil",
>>>> | has fired off a series of legal letters to media organisations,
>>>> | warning them against using its name as a verb.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1218805.ece
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't they just blame Webster?
>>>
>>> I think it is a condition of trademarks that you have to
>>> defend them, if they are seen to allow people to use it
>>> they can lose the trademark.
Makes you wonder about Krugle (Google for code).
>>'tis true, at least here in the USA, that by not defending the trademark,
>>you're giving implicit consent to its use by others.
I guess that obscenities can't get you sued. Trademarks, on the other hand...
> Some here will remember when Viacom shut downloads of Star Trek sites
> because otherwise their rights to the franchise would have gone into
> the public domain. Instead of the toilet, where they seem to have
> boldly gone.
Never gone there before. Not boldly anyway.
|
|