Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

micahflee.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#11

Post by Tobu »

ewzimm wrote: post #7
moocowduckquack wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is commentary though, not imitation. You are allowed to comment on things by name. If Shell, for instance sued shelloutsounds.org for the domain, I do not think they would have much of a case and the same applies here. If fixubuntu is using the word 'ubuntu' to mean the company Ubuntu, then the other word is obviously 'fix' and you would be hard pressed to argue that it isn't simply a critical statement rather tha…

They say they are happy to have the commentary, but their policy states that you cannot use ubuntu in a domain name or the ubuntu logo without permission. This applies to everyone.

The policy is just an offer: we won't bother you if you do it like this.

moocowduckquack is explaining that the law already gives rights and obligations wrt trademark use.

It's helpful to know the difference between public law and contracts; they have the same effects (creating rights and obligations), but public law applies to everyone (within a jurisdiction) and contracts don't.

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#12

Post by ewzimm »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #10
ewzimm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say they are happy to have the commentary, but their policy states that you cannot use ubuntu in a domain name or the ubuntu logo without permission. This applies to everyone.

This applies to everyone. Obviously it does not apply to everyone. Desmond Tutu, for instance is the patron of a very different Ubuntu foundation - http://www.saubuntu.co.za/ - and I doubt that Mark will be sending him any takedown notices anytime soon. Ubuntu itself is also an existing word that is free to use in its original context. Added to this, even if you are using the word ubuntu to mean the company Ubuntu, t…

I am just describing their policy, which they link to in the email to clear up confusion: http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy

You will require Canonical’s permission to use: (i) any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU which is sufficiently similar to the Trademarks or any other confusingly similar mark, and (ii) any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes.

[. . .]

You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.

You can write articles, create websites, blogs or talk about Ubuntu, provided that it is clear that you are in no way speaking for or on behalf of Canonical and that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#13

Post by ewzimm »

benologist wrote: post #9
ewzimm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say they are happy to have the commentary, but their policy states that you cannot use ubuntu in a domain name or the ubuntu logo without permission. This applies to everyone.

Ubuntu may not have the right to dictate usage of their name in a domain - see: paypalsucks.org, microsoftsucks.org, ebaysucks.com, etc.

I've checked the requirements for dictating name usage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Re...

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith".

In a UDRP proceeding, a panel will consider several non-exclusive factors to assess bad faith, such as:

Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark;

Whether the registrant registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, if the domain name owner has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; and

Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or Whether by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the registrant's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark.

In this case, I don't think that bad faith could be established, so Canonical may have to adjust their policy to reflect certain use cases in domain names to be completely accurate.

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#14

Post by ewzimm »

Tobu wrote: post #11
ewzimm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say they are happy to have the commentary, but their policy states that you cannot use ubuntu in a domain name or the ubuntu logo without permission. This applies to everyone.

The policy is just an offer: we won't bother you if you do it like this. moocowduckquack is explaining that the law already gives rights and obligations wrt trademark use. It's helpful to know the difference between public law and contracts; they have the same effects (creating rights and obligations), but public law applies to everyone (within a jurisdiction) and contracts don't.

I'm not sure what this has to do with a contract. It's just a matter of trademark law.

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#15

Post by Tobu »

ewzimm wrote: post #14
Tobu wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policy is just an offer: we won't bother you if you do it like this. moocowduckquack is explaining that the law already gives rights and obligations wrt trademark use. It's helpful to know the difference between public law and contracts; they have the same effects (creating rights and obligations), but public law applies to everyone (within a jurisdiction) and contracts don't.

I'm not sure what this has to do with a contract. It's just a matter of trademark law.

You keep posting about things that are not in fact law: the Ubuntu trademark policy, and an arbitration procedure TLDs use. Until you understand the difference, you are derailing the conversation.

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#16

Post by ewzimm »

Tobu wrote: post #15
ewzimm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what this has to do with a contract. It's just a matter of trademark law.

You keep posting about things that are not in fact law: the Ubuntu trademark policy, and an arbitration procedure TLDs use. Until you understand the difference, you are derailing the conversation.

I think they are both important. The arbitration policy has been tested in court, and it matters because ICANN controls all .com names like this one.

The trademark policy is important because Canonical owns the trademark, and it outlines specific things which they allow, like criticism, and specific things they do not, like using Ubuntu in a domain name without permission. The conversation is derailed if everyone does not understand that it is specifically use of the logo and domain name that Canonical has objected to. The logo is removed, but the domain name remains. It seems that Canonical might not be able to convince ICANN or the courts that the domain name is in bad faith.

We have seen similar issues before. Debian objected to Christian Marillat using the domain name debian-multimedia, so it was changed to deb-multimedia.

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#17

Post by chc »

It isn't clear to me that they are using trademark law to silence critics. IANAL, but based on my understanding of nominative use, I do not see how this use of the logo qualifies. Let's look at the list of general criteria for nominative use in the Wikipedia article linked in the OP:

1. The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute).

2. The user only uses as much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol).

3. The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.

The use of the logo in this case is not necessary to identify Ubuntu. If the site in question had just used the name "FixUbuntu", it is doubtful Ubuntu would have cared. But not only do they have this vaguely official-sounding domain name, they also had the Ubuntu logo as the most prominent art on the page and did nothing to disclaim the association.

In response to the complaint, the site has dropped the logo and has also added a disclaimer. I'm betting Ubuntu will be OK with this.

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#18

Post by hdevalence »

ewzimm wrote: post #12
moocowduckquack wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This applies to everyone. Obviously it does not apply to everyone. Desmond Tutu, for instance is the patron of a very different Ubuntu foundation - http://www.saubuntu.co.za/ - and I doubt that Mark will be sending him any takedown notices anytime soon. Ubuntu itself is also an existing word that is free to use in its original context. Added to this, even if you are using the word ubuntu to mean the company Ubuntu, t…

I am just describing their policy, which they link to in the email to clear up confusion: http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy You will require Canonical’s permission to use: (i) any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU which is sufficiently similar to the Trademarks or any other confusingly similar mark, and (ii) any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes. [. . .] Yo…

I'm glad that Canonical has graced me with permission to talk about Ubuntu. /s

Re: Ubuntu shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its privacy decisions

#19

Post by alextingle »

micahflee wrote: post #4
alextingle wrote: post #2

None of these settings are relevant to 12.04, are they?

Is 12.04 pre-Unity and Amazon ads? These start when the ads started.

Hmmm. There are music & video search tabs in my (12.04) dock that do seem to search out online. The music purchase links go to http://one.ubuntu.com though. The video searches seem to go to BBC iPlayer & YouTube.

Your settings tweaks don't work on 12.04 - any idea how I would go about disabling this?

(The settings schema "com.canonical.Unity.Lenses" doesn't exist on my system.)

Post reply on HN