Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

[dee.]

Among the older cases cited by the Court in Playboy v. Welles was Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church,[5] in which the Ninth Circuit had ruled that an independent auto repair shop that specialized in repairing Volkswagen cars and mentioned that fact in their advertising was not liable for trademark infringement so long as they did not claim or imply that they had any business relationship with the Volkswagen company.

Seems to me to be very similar case. Fixubuntu advertises a way to repair Ubuntu, so they are allowed to use the word Ubuntu and the Ubuntu logo to refer to the product, as long as they do not claim or imply that they have any business relationship with Canonical.

I think it's fairly clear from context that Fixubuntu had no business relationship with Canonical, thus it's allowed to use the Ubuntu trademark to refer to the product.

[Alex Sarmiento]

Sorry, but what do you have?

At one side is you, on the other is the internet, the EFF and Mark that thought that Canonical did it wrong. Is it over man, get over it... are many more things to you to convince people. Maybe find a creationist and explain to him about evolution.

As far as i can tell , canonical did not recognize of doing wrong about their trademark claims, they shouldn't to begin with if they are serious about Ubuntu. Mark S only regrets sending the "toughest template ". That's how it is.

[ciplogic]

I Sorry but, you have nothing. I feel like discussing with a creationist about evolution. Maybe there is a linux tea party after all

Sorry, but what do you have?

At one side is you, on the other is the internet, the EFF and Mark that thought that Canonical did it wrong. Is it over man, get over it... are many more things to you to convince people. Maybe find a creationist and explain to him about evolution.

[Alex Sarmiento]

The only one using argument from authority is you. You have no knowledge of the details of the law, no knowledge of the relevant case law, no knowledge about how the rules are actually applied in practice. EFF has relevant expertise and has provided case law that they claim back up their interpretation. You have provided nothing whatsoever other than your interpretation of their own position.

I do have knowledge of the legal details of this particular doctrine. All i had to do is read about it and understand it. Unless you are retarded , you do not need a lawyer to read and understand it for you, since it is very easy to understand. It seems that you neither understand what the fallacious argument from authority is about . You seems to be very lost

For example, you provide these arguments:
1 The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
2 The favicon was the ubuntu logo
3 No disclaimer
4 No hint of parody or criticism , nothing!

However, you provide no evidence that any of these are remotely relevant to nominative fair use, and in fact your own source (which is wikipedia, not the EFF) directly contradicts at least 2 of your points. It provides several criteria, which you quote, but neither a disclaimer nor parady or criticism appear anywhere in your own list of criteria (or the article as a whole).

What else do you need? the Nominative fair use doctrine says that you can use trademarks without asking for permission only when you make use of it as a reference to describe the other product, or to compare it to their own. But, as you can see, fixubuntu.com was using the Ubuntu logos and names only to brand itself. That is definitely not a fair use, that is not what the nominative fair use is about. In simply terms: You can not make use of trademark property to brand your website without authorization

I don't know how to demonstrate for you that two plus two equals four. Sorry.

Perhaps not, but you have

1. Provided no evidence that they are biased (the EFF are not lawyers for hire, they take on cases they think are relevant to their mission).
2. Ignore the fact that case law, which does indicate consensus.

Are you asking me for evidence that the advocacy EFF lawyers are biased towards a EFF member? Well, what about this case for once?

This is not deductive reasoning. Civil law systems use inductive reasoning, based on evidence provided in the history of case law on the subject.

I am not surprised you are ignoring the case law, though, since it clearly agrees with the EFF interpretation, not yours.

You are deducing that because the EFF lawyer, is a lawyer, then what he says must be true.

Sorry but, you have nothing. I feel like discussing with a creationist about evolution. Maybe there is a linux tea party after all

[dee.]

You do not need a mathematics PHD to understand that two plus two equals four. I giving plain and solid arguments instead of just invoking worthless fallacies.

Or, you know, judging from your past behaviour, you're just rabidly defending your Glorious Leader MarkyMark McShuttles and ignoring every piece of evidence that speaks of any wrongdoing from the part of Canonical, because you're an irrational fanboy and don't want to ever admit that Canonical could do anything wrong.

[TheBlackCat]

And frankly , i have never been impressed with arguments from authority . If that's all you have, then move on, because that is a worthless argument to begin with .

The only one using argument from authority is you. You have no knowledge of the details of the law, no knowledge of the relevant case law, no knowledge about how the rules are actually applied in practice. EFF has relevant expertise and has provided case law that they claim back up their interpretation. You have provided nothing whatsoever other than your interpretation of their own position.

Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the person does not have any expertise in the subject and/or the person is trying to use their authority to dismiss evidence provided by the other side. You are doing both. In fact you have not even bothered to acknowledge the fact that the EFF presented case law to back up their position, not to mention even begin to explain why those cases do not support their position.

For example, you provide these arguments:
1 The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
2 The favicon was the ubuntu logo
3 No disclaimer
4 No hint of parody or criticism , nothing!

However, you provide no evidence that any of these are remotely relevant to nominative fair use, and in fact your own source (which is wikipedia, not the EFF) directly contradicts at least 2 of your points. It provides several criteria, which you quote, but neither a disclaimer nor parady or criticism appear anywhere in your own list of criteria (or the article as a whole).

* cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter: A biased lawyer is hardly a consensus

Perhaps not, but you have

1. Provided no evidence that they are biased (the EFF are not lawyers for hire, they take on cases they think are relevant to their mission).
2. Ignore the fact that case law, which does indicate consensus.

* any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

This is not deductive reasoning. Civil law systems use inductive reasoning, based on evidence provided in the history of case law on the subject.

I am not surprised you are ignoring the case law, though, since it clearly agrees with the EFF interpretation, not yours.

[ciplogic]

Kubuntu and Xubuntu are registered trademarks, property of Canonical. Domain names are liable for trademark infringement .
(...)
And fixubuntu.com did not follow the tips from the EFF itself: (...)
It is absolutely clear that fixubuntu is the abusive one.

Yes, but this doesn't make it abusive!

The fact that a guy from EFF does want to follow or not to follow the rules of EFF (as long as he didn't state that he does it on behalf of his employer), is in his power and best interest based on his values.

Even more, the fact that he does not get any personal gain (like the site comes with no ads or endorsements) and he fight for a personal cause makes less likely an abuse, as Red Cross (an agnostic movement as of today) is an abuse of Christianity or the Pope.

[Alex Sarmiento]

When did you get your law degree?

And which school? I'm going to call them and ask them to take you back because obviously the education didn't sink in the first time.

You do not need a mathematics PHD to understand that two plus two equals four. I giving plain and solid arguments instead of just invoking worthless fallacies.

[Alex Sarmiento]

Nope, I'm not seeing that. By that logic, Canonical should be closing down Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc. websites because they have the word "Ubuntu" in them and they are not affiliated with Canonical. They even produce a product with that name!
I also don't see how you can draw a distinction between "nominative" and "accusative". It's clearly nominative. It says that the website is about changing something in Ubuntu. Making the name "Fix the primary Linux distribution made by Canonical" makes zero sense (and http://fixtheprimarylinuxdistributio...canonical.com/ makes even less sense).

Kubuntu and Xubuntu are registered trademarks, property of Canonical. Domain names are liable for trademark infringement . For instance, wordpress have a strong position regarding domain names see http://wordpress.org/about/domains/

And fixubuntu.com did not follow the tips from the EFF itself: https://www.eff.org/wp/tips-shutting-down-g

Don't use the target's name alone in the domain name ? adding "sucks" is good, but you can be creative. Point is, www.badco.com is more likely to be perceived by a trademark owner as confusing than www.ihatebadco.com. And remember, if your content is good and people link to it, your site will likely come up in Google searches for your topic, no matter what your domain name is. Often, the domain name isn't worth the trouble.

Futhermore, it does not matter the content of the website itself, "fix ubuntu " could be perfectly perceived as click-bait or trademark stuffing .

It is absolutely clear that fixubuntu is the abusive one.

[dee.]

The use of the logo was not nominative .The Ubuntu logo was used to brand the website itself and nothing else . Just look at the screenshot. That is not fair use at all. And the use of the word ubuntu "fixubuntu" in the url is accusative , not nominative. Companies and projects are in general entitled to protect their trademarks , for instance http://wordpress.org/about/domains/.

When did you get your law degree?

And which school? I'm going to call them and ask them to take you back because obviously the education didn't sink in the first time.