Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) wrote: It is true that it is a US registered trademark see USPTO.gov No. 0836321, 1939180, but at larousse.wikipedia.org it is only being used for testing purposes, it probably does not dilute the french tradmark or otherwise create confusion. Also many educational web sites use the word larousse, even on wikipedia you can find reference to Larousse, so if someone finds their way to Wikipedia via larousse they will get a page about: [[larousse Gatronomique]]. As Larousse is a French publisher of French books, how can there be confusion? It is obviously not well known enough to have acquired a secondary meaning under US law, one could argue that their protection only extends to products and services where the French language must be a major component, as far as I can tell they have not taken any steps to publish dictionaries or encyclopedias in English. La rousse is also a french word meaning a color between orange and red. I thought it was a reference an ironic reference to the Department of Homeland Security. It can also mean a red headed woman, as in ''une belle fille rousse', la rousse'. Perhaps to keep Pliny company on those cold nights? Alex 756

Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) said: I am not arguing with anyone. I am just stating my opinion, which is what I thought this discussion list was for. If it is for something else, would someone please let me know, as that is not what it is being represented to be. I was responding to your opinion, which is that there might be a legal problem using the word "laroussee" and in fact I was agreeing with you (even more so than other posts) as the word larousse IS registered with the USPTO. Technically you are right maybe Wikipedia should worry about using this name even if it is the name of an encyclopediest or the name of a Red Head Linux Server or even what I say when I am ordering an amber beer in Montreal. ''Donnez-moi la rousse, SVP!'' The point is not all use of a trademark is infringement of that mark, I am not offering Wikipedia my legal opinion (though I do admit to being a lawyer, I hope that doesn't make anyone nervous) but just stating what to me seems pretty obvious, it is the French word that Larousse is trying to protect as a mark for its French encyclopedias, not for all uses of the word. Unlike copyright trademarks must be used to be protected, and while there is an argument that the word larousse is a registered trademark referring to encyclopedias, it is also true that they only use it in reference to French encyclopedias, it is maybe like saying that that word Exxon cannot be used by an insurance company, well Exxon refers to oil and gas, not to insurance, they are different things, and I was arguing that there was no underlying confusion between the use of the name Larousse as a server for an English encyclopedia web site, not that it wasn't a trademark infringement, only a federal district judge can make that determination and that determination is based, in part, about their being confusion between the two uses. I hope the above does not upset you, Lars, it was not my intention. Alex756

"Oliver Pereira" wrote on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] larousse.wikipedia.org? I think that the analogy with Macintosh may be a bit wrong. If someone gets linked to Wikipedia by putting the word larousse into a brower, search engine, etc., in light of Larousse publishing English encyclopedias I think that they might have a trademark infringement issue, the word, in English is considered fanciful. It is not an actual English word and it was not MrLarousse or Drlarousse it is the exact infringing word. And wasn't Larousse the man the founder of Larousse the company? This is the whole point of a trademark, you can't call Spanish sparkling wine champagne as champagne is a trademark identified with the production of sparking wine in a particular French region. Since it links to an encyclopedia there is not an issue of secondary meaning. This is the protection that Larousse was seeking when it applied for a trademark and got it from the US government. I am just saying here that one might have a hard time convincing a federal judge, in light of the use of Larousse as a trademark name and being used for English encyclopedias that its trademark was not infringed. Of course the infringement may be insignificant, but that is not the issue, is it? Alex756

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Sean Barrett wrote: It's a bad example anyway, because 'Champagne' is not a trademark. A trademark is owned by a single company (although it might allow others to use it). "Champagne" is a _product name_ (and the European Union has specified that only when it is created in a certain region, the product name may be used). Andre Engels

Regarding geographic origin the Canadian act also defines that term in sec. 2: "geographical indication" « indication géographique » "geographical indication" means, in respect of a wine or spirit, an indication that (a) identifies the wine or spirit as originating in the territory of a WTO Member, or a region or locality of that territory, where a quality, reputation or other characteristic of the wine or spirit is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, and (b) except in the case of an indication identifying a wine or spirit originating in Canada, is protected by the laws applicable to that WTO Member; Alex756

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 tarquin wrote: | Reality check: | it's a server name. | NOBODY is going to see it except the devs and the occasional mention of | "our Larousse server is down" on this mailing list. Ah, such savoir-plaindre! Have some champagne de la Californie and join the bagarre. [This message is close-smilied for the humor-impared.] - -- ~ Sean Barrett | Vortex goggles on? Here we go! --Calvin ~ sean(a)epoptic.com |

tarquin wrote: You took the words right out of my keyboard! Ec

On 21 May 2003 at 14:33, Toby Bartels wrote: Oh sure, the name is part of the DNS system. It has to be. Towit: Name: larousse.wikipedia.org Address: 130.94.122.199 That said, it will only be seen if someone goes looking for it. Bill

Brion Vibber wrote: So am I correct to think that nobody will ever *run*across* <larousse.wikipedia.org> -- that is, they'll never find it without typing in "larousse" at some point themselves? -- Toby

Brion Vibber wrote: Right, I covered that in an earlier post but forgot it in the last one. But that's all OK. -- Toby

To Ray Saintonge "méthode champennoise". Méthode rather than méthede. Méthode like english method, I think. The process of fabrication. End of the french cultural minute :-) Alvaro

Sean Barrett sean(a)epoptic.com said: We are not talking about international trademark issues here, Larousse has registered their mark in the United States (see previous post) and is using it in the United States for English encyclopedia publications. Regarding the use of the word champagne in the United States (excuse me but I am Canadian) that is because the word champagne is not recognized as being a trademark in the United States, it is considered to have a regular meaning in the dictionary. This comparison is thus inappropriate because there is no word "larousse" in American English dictionaries. Words like macintosh (a type of apple), and champagne (in the US) are words that have regular meaning and cannot be trademarked, even IF they can be trademarked for a fanciful use it is limited to the product that they are marking until the TM becomes so well known as to take on a secondary meaning, or it becomes so widespread that it becomes the same as the product it marks such as in singer, which was once a word that meant sewing machine (but no more) or xerox copy, which many people still use when they mean photocopy. Campagne is a trademark (and even an origin of appellation mark) that is recognized in many countires. It is one of the reasons that these products need to be relabeled in these countries as "sparkling wines". Larousse does not appear to fit into the category of champagne, macintosh, xerox or any other exceptions. The only exception would be if it were not used, or that it was being used in a different class than it was registered. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it cannot use larousse, a trademark registered in the US to be used for enclyclopedias in the US. Using it as a mark to allow people to recognize Wikipedia under trademark law (with all the previous caveats added here by reference) appears to be infringement and may create confusion between Wikipedia and Larousse. Using it as a subdomain name, in my opinion does not protect it from confusion, it as if Pepsi had a web site called www.coca-cola.pepsi.com. I doubt that Coca-Cola would tolerate such an infringement. I agree with Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) regarding the fact pattern as presented -- use of a trademarked encyclopedia name would likely be considered infringement and I doubt that if the TM owner found out about it that they would tolerate it. At this point the infringement is probably de minimus and would only lead to nominal damages ($1), but if it started popping up in search engines I am sure Wikipedia would hear from Larousse's US trademark representatives who would be probably more than happy if Wikipedia agrees to cease and desist using such a mark. Alex756

And why not renaming larousse to champagne ? It seems there is a consensus. It is not in the name that lays the value but in the «bottle». :) -- Julien Tayon http://www.tayon.net/ http://libroscope.org/ Si la vérité est une femme, essayons de la séduire avant de la saisir.

Anthere wrote: Hmmm! Wikipedia, the fine champagne of encyclopedias! Ec

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Richard Grevers wrote: | My hosts use server names | which include "Scooby" and "Scrappy" but the only reason I know that is | through doing contract work for them (you might see it on a tracerout | result, too). Will Hanna-Barbera file suit? Not likely. Similarly, the Jet Propulsion Lab's mail servers are named for the Jetsons -- Elroy delivered all my mail for quite a few years. Should JPL, CalTech, or NASA worried? My servers are named Orwen, Orgoch, and Orddu. For two Wikicents, who did I lift the names from? No fair googling. - -- ~ Sean Barrett | Vortex goggles on? Here we go! --Calvin ~ sean(a)epoptic.com |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Toby Bartels wrote: | Sean Barrett wrote: | | |>My servers are named Orwen, Orgoch, and Orddu. For two Wikicents, who |>did I lift the names from? No fair googling. | | | These are the Fates in ancient Wales. | They may be found today in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles | (but he didn't invent them). Very good. And even tho Disney made a cartoon of "The Black Cauldron," I don't expect them to sue me. [Okay, go ahead and insert a Spanish Inquisition joke here.] - -- ~ Sean Barrett | When trouble arises and things look bad, ~ sean(a)epoptic.com | there is always one individual who perceives ~ | a solution and is willing to take command. ~ | Very often, that individual is crazy.

Utterly irrelevant. Larousse is just the name of a famous historical encyclopedist. It's a trademark only in its use as a brand name to sell encyclopedias. Since we aren't using the name as a brand (we're not using it for any public purpose whatsoever--it's a private internal machine name), there's no trademark issue. -- Lee Daniel Crocker &lt;lee(a)piclab.com&gt; <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

Je Mardo 20 Majo 2003 10:22, Anthere skribis: No small surprise, she is running on Red Head Linux. ;) -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)