On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 08:24:47AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:16:50PM +0100, Andrew Flegg wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 15:59, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:24:26PM +0200, Jos Poortvliet wrote: > > >> > > >> Ok, LF thinks the name Smeegol, while funny and inventive, might not be > > >> the > > >> best name of the decade. > > > > > > Sorry, but it's not up to them to like or dislike a name that has > > > nothing to do with their product name. There is no trademark law > > > violation here at all, so for them to claim there is, is disingenuous. > > > > To play Devil's Advocate (and, of course, IANAL), the trademark is > > completely contained within the name "Smeegol": > > > > "S" + "MeeGo".lower() + "l" > > > > Is this grounds for complaint with regards to trademark law? > > No it isn't. > > Oh sure, you can try, but as it is a totally different word, and it > actually comes from a different source (i.e. you didn't randomly create > it)
Doh, no, I was wrong, the original word is "smeagol", sorry. But my original point still stands: > there is lots of defense that it is not confusing at all. And, as we are properly attributing the MeeGo (tm) trademark, any objection under trademark law itself seems very tenuous. Of course, a "real" cease-and-desist order would have to be filed for any of this to be able to be properly discussed, which I think, is the proper next step of the Linux Foundation if they really wish to persue this issue. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
