[174922] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Oct 5 02:27:56 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rEqdA0k8T9duv_phQCaabW7bqVvgCf2u5VqtmRkN9RVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 23:23:11 -0700
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Perhaps. I admit that trademark would be a novel approach that might succeed=
. Of course if I put a satire of Starbucks up on the captive portal, do I qu=
alify under the fair use doctrine for satire?
I think in most cases, people are able to be adults and work it out reasonab=
ly without involving the FCC or the PTO.=20
Owen
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 19:04, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com>
> wrote:
>=20
>> ...
>>=20
>> So your position is that if I start using Starbuck's SSID in a location
>> where there is no Starbuck, and they layer move in to that building,
>> I'm entitled to compel them to not use their SSID?
>=20
> This would be why commercial entities
> often use their trademark identifiers
> as part of the SSID. You can compel
> them (briefly) not to use the SSID, until
> they sue you for trademark infringement
> and serve cease-and-desist orders against
> you for unlicensed and unauthorized use
> of the Starbucks name. Totally separate
> realm of enforcement, and in many ways
> far more effective.
>=20
> Matt
