need your opinion
Yuval Levy
Ed Harp
I would give up the name regardless of legal matters simply because he
used it first.
Ed Harp
San Jose, CA
On May 19, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
>
> <http://panospace.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/closed-until-further-notice/
> >
>
> thanks
> Yuv
Tom Sharpless
'panospace', so do it. There is no need for a fight. Be nice to M.
Cuvelier; help promote his panography business with a link on your
site, and all should be well.
Tom
Harry van der Wolf
My opinion is this: you have a perfect right to keep using
'panospace', so do it. There is no need for a fight. Be nice to M.
Cuvelier; help promote his panography business with a link on your
site, and all should be well.
Tom
Hi Yuv,
I agree with Tom, more or less based on my own experiences but not solidly supported by expert legal knowledge.
As far as I know domain names are not coupled to business names unless the business is some kind of "world-wide institute" (like microsoft, IBM, SAP and so on) and this to be judged by a judge (hence the verb). In the past some legal cases have been set up around this domain name vs. world-wide well-known business name. In the case of mr. Cuvelier that is not the case: there is no substantial part of the world population that knows of his business, domain and website.
So from that point there is no issue.
Secondly, the registered business-name. Maybe mr. M. Cuvelier registered his business as such in France, but I could not find that, but more important: did he protect the name of it? You already searched the "US trade mark database" and found that it was not registered (and name protected) as such for America and Canada (maybe you should do a quick scan for the UK also regarding your plans).
Next to that, your blog is completely non-profit as the used "Creative Commons license" explains.
In the past when registering names for domains and (small) businesses for customers, I've seen many equal names, both domain and business, registered per country and all completely legal.
So, as Tom already explained: Mr. cuvelier seems to be friendly so respect mr. Cuvelier by friendly linking to his site and leave it to that.
If he thinks he has a legal point in "stopping" you ask him for prove. He should have some statement from "the chamber of commerce", stating his legal rights and for which countries. This registration should be freely available on the internet (at least it is in Holland), just to prove such things.
Success with your nice and excellent blog at panospace.wordpress.com.
Harry
Carl von Einem
someone else. I just wonder why he complaints about the name of a blog
and accepts <http://www.daltech.com.au/briantanti/panospace.htm>?
Carl
cr...@ukonline.co.uk
I guy I knew registered london.fm when micronesia started offering domains and
he was made to hand it over to that radio station.
mick
> Carl
----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
Daniel M German
Tom> My opinion is this: you have a perfect right to keep using
Tom> 'panospace', so do it. There is no need for a fight. Be nice to M.
Tom> Cuvelier; help promote his panography business with a link on your
Tom> site, and all should be well.
trademarks are national in scope. you can easily get a trademark in
Canada for a few dollars.
BTW, it is not the same to trademark than to copyright. You can't
copyright a word/phrase.
If he has a trademark to the word panospace it should show in the
search. He will have the obligation to defend it.
--dmg
Tom> Tom
Tom> On May 20, 12:30 am, Yuval Levy <goo...@levy.ch> wrote:
>> <http://panospace.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/closed-until-further-notice/>
>>
>> thanks
>> Yuv
Tom>
--
--
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org/
http://silvernegative.com/
dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .
Eric O'Brien
It seems to me that you (Yuv) are not using "Panospace" as the name
of a company, or service, or product... only a TITLE for a blog. I
think that you could use, for example, the word "Adobe" or
"Photoshop" or "Microsoft" as part of a blog title without infringing
on anyone's legal rights.
The writer, Antoine Cuvelier, writes "This name PANOSPACE is
registered and copyrighted by us..."
A) The website (panospace.com) asserts a copyright on "Welcome to
Panospace" (or perhaps just "Panospace") but as far as I know, it's
not possible to copyright a WORD. In that case, "Panospace" is not
likely to be copyrighted.
B) The writer uses the word "registered," but not "Registered
TRADEMARK." (This could be language problem - I'm guessing the
writer's native language is French, while the post was written in
English.)
There are OTHER types of "registration" -- all of which (I believe)
carry less weight than a Trademark registration.
"panospace.com" is indeed a registered DOMAIN NAME... but my
understanding is that domain names, alone, have very little
significance regarding the rights of others to use the word or words
in the name.
"Panospace" might be a registered BUSINESS NAME in Paris or a wider
area inside France. Outside of the local jurisdiction, THAT doesn't
carry much weight either.
The poster writes "This name PANOSPACE is registered and copyrighted
by us, and this could lead to confusion for our clients, sponsors
agents and relatives."
"Confusion" is not sufficient. The title of your blog, and his
domain name match. So what? (And does he *actually* mean
"relatives," or is that another language problem?)
And, FYI, Someone with an Australian domain (<http://
www.daltech.com.au/briantanti/panospace.htm>) is asserting Trade Mark
rights on "panospace."
So:
I don't think a single word ("panospace") can be copyrighted. If I'm
correct, that's off the table.
If the writer means to say that "panospace" is a REGISTERED
TRADEMARK, then that should be easy for them to document.
If "panospace" is NOT a Trademark registered by the writer, then any
other things matter little. It's not even clear that "panospace" is
his business name. If it's ONLY a domain he's registered, I don't
see that he has any recourse.
In other situations, I've seen what amounts to a "footnote" somewhat
alone the lines of "Looking for _______ ? Click Here."
eo
John McAllister
is an attempt to "pass off" the use of the name to the detriment of the
"lawful owner".
Anybody can register any domain name, on a first come basis, except where
there is an attempt to deliberately exploit the registration by sitting on
it.
Provided that the domain is being put to a legitimate use, the owners of a
registered trademark can do nothing about it's use in a domain name.
Daniel M German
Eric> [Just my opinions ...]
Eric> It seems to me that you (Yuv) are not using "Panospace" as the name
Eric> of a company, or service, or product... only a TITLE for a blog. I
Eric> think that you could use, for example, the word "Adobe" or
Eric> "Photoshop" or "Microsoft" as part of a blog title without infringing
Eric> on anyone's legal rights.
Eric> The writer, Antoine Cuvelier, writes "This name PANOSPACE is
Eric> registered and copyrighted by us..."
Eric> A) The website (panospace.com) asserts a copyright on "Welcome to
Eric> Panospace" (or perhaps just "Panospace") but as far as I know, it's
Eric> not possible to copyright a WORD. In that case, "Panospace" is not
Eric> likely to be copyrighted.
COrrect. A word cannot be copyrighted.
Eric> B) The writer uses the word "registered," but not "Registered
Eric> TRADEMARK." (This could be language problem - I'm guessing the
Eric> writer's native language is French, while the post was written in
Eric> English.)
Most likely it means "Registered Trademark".
I recommend any of you to read about registered trademarks in the
wikipedia.
Eric> The poster writes "This name PANOSPACE is registered and copyrighted
Eric> by us, and this could lead to confusion for our clients, sponsors
Eric> agents and relatives."
Eric> "Confusion" is not sufficient. The title of your blog, and his
Eric> domain name match. So what? (And does he *actually* mean
Eric> "relatives," or is that another language problem?)
Confusion is at the core of trademark protection. Any use of a trademark
under the same jurisdiction, and under for the same type of "warez" can
be considered an infringement (there are exceptions but they depend on
jurisdiction, e.g. see "Playboy Enterprises vs Terri Welles" as an
example of fair use of a trademarks in the US. Also, there are some
trademarks that can claim to be "universal" (universal as in "all
warez", not as in "all countries") if they are well known such Kodak,
Canon, Pepsi.
Eric> And, FYI, Someone with an Australian domain (<http://
Eric> www.daltech.com.au/briantanti/panospace.htm>) is asserting Trade Mark
Eric> rights on "panospace."
Trademarks are national in scope.
Eric> I don't think a single word ("panospace") can be copyrighted. If I'm
Eric> correct, that's off the table.
It can.
Eric> If the writer means to say that "panospace" is a REGISTERED
Eric> TRADEMARK, then that should be easy for them to document.
It should be easy to verify at least in canada and the United States.
Eric> If "panospace" is NOT a Trademark registered by the writer, then any
Eric> other things matter little. It's not even clear that "panospace" is
Eric> his business name. If it's ONLY a domain he's registered, I don't
Eric> see that he has any recourse.
Agreed.
ArAgost
words, brand names or trade marks; it has to do with the right to copy
someone else's work of (usually) art, like would be the design of his
blog, songs he composed or books he wrote. Which is clearly not the
case.
After having this clear we can safely assume that that guy doesn't
know what his talking about. Really, I don't want to insult him, he
simply has too little knowledge of IP to properly make his point.
Even if could provide proof that he indeed possess a trademark on
panospace, it should have no validity in the USA, and even in that
case it would not be a case of infringement - think Apple corp. vs
Apple music (happened only when Apple began selling music), or the
fact that Photoshop insider, Photoshop disasters, You suck at
photoshop, macrumors, ipodlounge, the apple blog and a bazillion
similar blog names are allowed to exist.
On May 22, 10:17 am, Eric O'Brien <eri...@possibilityengine.com>
wrote:
Yuv
Let's not hijack this list from its purpose.
follow up and (hopefully) closure:
<http://panospace.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/open-again/>
<http://panospace.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/legalese/>
Yuv
Daniel M German
ArAgost> Eric, you're 100% right. Copyright does not, by any mean, apply to
ArAgost> words, brand names or trade marks; it has to do with the right to copy
ArAgost> someone else's work of (usually) art, like would be the design of his
ArAgost> blog, songs he composed or books he wrote. Which is clearly not the
ArAgost> case.
ArAgost> After having this clear we can safely assume that that guy doesn't
ArAgost> know what his talking about. Really, I don't want to insult him, he
ArAgost> simply has too little knowledge of IP to properly make his point.
ArAgost> Even if could provide proof that he indeed possess a trademark on
ArAgost> panospace, it should have no validity in the USA, and even in that
It (s)he has the trademark, and it is in the US, it will be valid in the
US. We don't know that yet.
ArAgost> case it would not be a case of infringement - think Apple corp. vs
ArAgost> Apple music (happened only when Apple began selling music), or the
Of course this not apply to this case. Both uses of panospace fall
within the same domain: making panoramas.
ArAgost> fact that Photoshop insider, Photoshop disasters, You suck at
ArAgost> photoshop, macrumors, ipodlounge, the apple blog and a bazillion
ArAgost> similar blog names are allowed to exist.
You need to get updated. ipodlounge had to change its name.
In the US one can use a trademark under fair use, but it is always
tricky. The likelihood of being sued is high (the onus is in the owner
of the trademark to protect it, and on the user to demonstrate fair use,
and only courts can determine if the use if fair).
--dmg