[174928] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Sun Oct 5 17:24:02 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 17:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rEqdA0k8T9duv_phQCaabW7bqVvgCf2u5VqtmRkN9RVw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com>
> 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.
Though this requires you to buy the argument that the use of a wordmark
*in an address of some time* is infringing under the terms of the Lanham
Act, which is a point on which I don't believe there's presently any case
law, and which I think would be a difficult argument to prosecute against
a properly defended plaintiff.
Just *using a word* that someone has registered as a wordmark is not
inherently infringement, or Ford City PA would be in serious trouble.
The Lanham Act is *quite* clear on what is an infringing use, and I
don't myself believe the posited case qualifies.
Cheers,
-- jr 'IANAL' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
