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

https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trademark-law-to-silence-critics-of-its-privacy-decisions/

by micahflee • 13 years ago

43 25 13 years ago

micahflee.com

alextingle2• 13 years ago

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

micahflee• 13 years ago

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

alextingle2• 13 years ago

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.)

ewzimm7• 13 years ago

That is correct.

kcorbitt• 13 years ago

While I sympathize with your situation my understanding of trademark law is that it's a sort of "use it or lose it" proposition. If they can't demonstrate that they're making an effort to police their trademark then it can become generic and they lose all exclusive rights to it. I think the best solution here would be for you to choose another domain name.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm...

moocowduckquack2• 13 years ago

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 than an infringing brand.

ewzimm7• 13 years ago

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.

aragot• 13 years ago

I sympathize with better default privacy settings too, however you must note that they didn't ask you to remove all references to Ubuntu: They only ask you to remove the logo and the domain name. You can understand they need to make it clear in the cinsumer's mind what belongs to the official sphere of Ubuntu and what doesn't. Also, before saying they're using it against privacy, we should check whether they've asked to take down similar domains with no correlation to criticism or privacy, and they answer is probably yes.

As kcorbitt says, the trademark law requires ongoing enforcement or the owner will lose the legitimity. Have you checked whether they'd let you keep talking about Ubuntu? IANAL, but wouldn't it be correct to keep a website named "Fix Ubuntu" in a domain name such as privacywatch.com? This way they keep the integrity of the brand for the consumers and you stay in the ecosystem.

chc3• 13 years ago

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.

aktiur3• 13 years ago

You are right this particular case would not necessary pass the test for nominative use. But there are other legal protections available, especially in the case of commentaries or criticisms, that could protect even in the case where the logo was used.

See section "Commentary and criticism" on the page below

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others

chc3• 13 years ago

Yes, but I don't see how you'd think any of that would apply here. Right from that page: "you should never festoon your website with a company's logo".

The fact that you are engaged in commentary or criticism does not automatically protect you from claims of infringement. If this had just been an entry on a blog, that would be one thing, but instead it was a standalone website where the only branding was the name "Fix Ubuntu" and the Ubuntu logo, and no attempt was made to disclaim the association. Surely you can see why Canonical might be concerned.

(Again, none of this is meant to constitute legal advice — I'm just explaining why I don't think Canonical was being unreasonable.)

NateDad• 13 years ago

Sensationalist BS. Canonical isn't trying to silence anyone. They have _the same information_ on AskUbuntu.com, a site directly supported by paid Canonical employees.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/192269/how-can-i-remove-amazo...

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

Related Stories