Big Red tells crypto-coin publication: One does not simply call one's website 'OracleTimes' Oracle is threatening serious legal consequences for a blockchain and cryptocurrency news service called "OracleTimes". Big Red's lawyers have written to OracleTimes pointing out that Larry Ellison's database behemoth has been using the name Oracle since at least 1979 and accusing the website of potentially confusing readers …
"We can only hope no one tells Oracle Corp about the beloved Berkshire shopping and dining destination just down the road from its British HQ in Reading."
That shopping centre has made international headlines recently, as the site of the first UK branch of a fried "chicken" supplier called Chick-Fil-A, which failed spectacularly; and they ended up announcing their closure 8 days after they opened.
If they hadn't heard about it before, they have now. It has however been around for 20 years now, so they are out of time for any trademark claims. If you consider it to be a "new" shopping centre, that is a sign that you are in fact an old person. The shopping centre is now older than many of the people who work in it.
If I were an avid tarot reader, it is absolutely obvious that I would immediately think of Oracle Corp when stumbling upon a site named Oracle Times. It is blindingly obvious that nothing containing the name Oracle has ever, in the history of Mankind, ever meant anything other than Oracle Corp.
Someone is going to have to invent a new concept for Ellison's ego. Or maybe we just use him as a reference, as in "that guy has an ego of 1 ellison".
This post has been deleted by its author
Someone is going to have to invent a new concept for Ellison's ego. Or maybe we just use him as a reference, as in "that guy has an ego of 1 ellison".
That's something for the El Reg Standard's Bureau to contemplate. Seems the world of tech bosses and nations have their share of egos that need to be classified and sorted.
There's the O2 Centre in Finchley Rd, not connected to the mobile company or their 'tent' on the Greenwich peninsula... and not far way was Star Box, a small stall selling coffee that annoyed a big corporation that I can't remember the name of (the guy running it had communist leanings and it was named after the 'red star'... honest guv!)
My favourite used to be McDoner not far from Highbury & Islington station that received a 'cease and desist'... one's a place selling greasy meat with a few green bits for decoration, the other is a takeaway kebab house (haven't been that way for years)
This post has been deleted by its author
There's a Bristol take-away called Miss Millie's Fried Chicken, who's "MFC" logo is in a suspiciously familiar font... (Although ironically the guy who set it up was friends with Colonel Saunders and had the first KFC franchise in the UK).
On the subject of Bristol fast food outlets, there's also the Jason DonnerVan
I'm somewhat surprised that anyone would consider using oracle as part of their trading name given the disrepute that Ellison's gang have brought the name into.
Who wants to have even the merest association with a company known for its litigiousness, sharp practice and general arrogance?
For other examples of the kind of overreach shown here I recommend taking a look at Techdirt. The people there have a long list of big corporations throwing their weight about and sometimes getting their arses kicked for pulling such stunts.
I hope that Oracle get their comeuppance for filing such a flimsy and frivolous attack.
I seem to remember that Microsnot tried this many years ago, when they claimed that some small publishing company (Scanrom Publications of Cedarhurst, NY) had infringed their copyright on Microsoft Bookshelf by producing a CD-ROM (remember those?) library called "The First Electronic Jewish Bookshelf"
I believe the judge determined that you cannot trademark commen English words, although where that puts Zuck's trademark on the word "face", I have no idea.
If a large organisation like oracle corp threatens a smaller entity the only options are to concede or to go to court and, sadly, the winner will be the one with the deepest pockets. The small guy has no option but to concede, there needs to be some way of making resolution of these disputes more equitable.
The real problem is that it is possible to trademark any single dictionary word or proper noun. That should not be allowed unless a new coinage like Tumblr. Multi-word phrases should only be permitted only if they are truly innovative (see KFC's "Family Feast" trademark dispute http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/6641819.stm). KFC do own that trade mark in respect of classes 29, 30 and 43 (food related) but not categories 16 (cardboard) or 17 (rubber), they missed a trick there... Asserting the trade mark against a small business may have been "legitimate" in that it was in breach of the trademark but it just serves to demonstrate the stupidity of permitting the registration in the first place and the stupidity of KFC for making the claim. If, say McDonalds, had started selling a "family feast" I'd still regard the registration as abusive but at least if KFC wanted to assert the registration it would be more of a fair fight.
There's a long history of disputes over single words I recall the One-in-a-Million Ltd 20 years ago where Virgin managed to claim "ownership " of the word. Apple (a manufacturer of veblen goods) had a series of disputes with The Beatles Apple music label. EasyJet is a new coinage, a portmanteau word and as such I'd consider it valid but claiming ownership of the word "easy", not valid.
A trade mark registration is limited to specified categories of use so it is acceptable for two businesses to use the same trade mark if the registrations are for different categories so apple could be registered for use in respect of computers and at the same time to another company in respect of music.
Similar issues arise in respect of patents & copyrights and the protections are applied to domain name registration disputes. Try registering the domain name easy-virgin.co.uk and see whose lawyers get to you first... It becomes more of an issue with domain names because while "virgin" could be assigned in all 45 trademark classes to 45 different companies there can only be one virgin.com domain name, in that case surely "first come, first served" should apply and trade mark assertions disregarded. It is valid to raise a dispute when the issue is passing off - e.g. if one created a website to mislead visitors into believing they are at that of another organisation but that is very poorly policed at present evidenced by so many internet scams and phishing emails such as those still found in Google search results that "help" you apply for the free EHIC/E111 card for a fee.
The whole issue of intellectual property rights is a mess. The various systems were all put in place for legitimate reasons, essentially to protect innovators from those who would steal their ideas, but have become perverted to protect the powerful and enable them to disregard the innovator's rights (Hoover vs Dyson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/954623.stm being a prime example).
While I enjoy poking Ellison's ego as much as the next commentard, I suspect that this may just be one of those situations where the lawyers think that they have to defend their trademark in order to keep their trademark, and sometimes they err on the side of ridiculous in terms of who they go after.
The fact that this helps the lawyers look busy is, of course, a feature. The fact that it brings ridicule down on their employer is not their concern.
Rival trademark applicants often use neglect as an argument in their favour. It's pretty reasonable to let folks use neglect to challenge since the value of a trademark is very much bound up in continuous usage in the marketplace rather than more concrete attributes like novelty or originality.
Also, Oracle's mark would be limited to IT related fields which presumably the cryptidiots are expecting to play in. Shopping centres and the other examples in the article would be unchallengable by Oracle unless there's some IT connection I'm not seeing. Also, since they're using the compound "OracleTimes", not just "Oracle", it's not a certain win for Ellison & Co.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
