Office Live LLC filed a trademark-infringement suit against Microsoft in the U.S. District Court of Central California in Los Angeles earlier this month over Microsoft's Web-based small business package of the same name. Microsoft Office Live, which debuted in November 2006, provides CRM, a Web presence, collaboration, and accounting services to small businesses. In a statement, Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said his company doubts the legitimacy of Office Live's trademark claim and will "vigorously defend" its legal position to maintain the name for its service: "Clearly, if anyone is seeking to gain from the name of another company's products, it's the plaintiffs in this case."
According to court papers, Office Live, in North Hollywood, California, is seeking damages and an injunction to stop Microsoft from using the Office Live name. Microsoft named its Office Live service as part of the whole “Live” branding. Office Live said it registered to trademark the "Office Live" name in 2002, launching many Web sites including: lawofficelive.com, autoofficelive.com, realtorsofficelive.com, doctorsofficelive.com, accountantsofficelive.com, and psychologistsofficelive.com. It originally filed suit against Microsoft over the trademark in December 2006, but the case was put on hold so the companies could negotiate a settlement. When one was not reached, Office Live moved forward with its lawsuit against the software giant.
News source: InfoWorld
According to court papers, Office Live, in North Hollywood, California, is seeking damages and an injunction to stop Microsoft from using the Office Live name. Microsoft named its Office Live service as part of the whole “Live” branding. Office Live said it registered to trademark the "Office Live" name in 2002, launching many Web sites including: lawofficelive.com, autoofficelive.com, realtorsofficelive.com, doctorsofficelive.com, accountantsofficelive.com, and psychologistsofficelive.com. It originally filed suit against Microsoft over the trademark in December 2006, but the case was put on hold so the companies could negotiate a settlement. When one was not reached, Office Live moved forward with its lawsuit against the software giant.
News source: InfoWorld
It's not like anyone ever heard of the other Office Live anyway...
Office Live regstered the trademark in 2002. No matter what Microsoft say, its their legal right to fight. If a window company went out and called themselves "Windows Vista" or "Micro-soft windows", you dont think microsoft wouldnt fight?
Just because its microsoft, it doesnt mean they cant be fought against. I think you're the one who needs to grow up
Oh, and just because YOU havent heard about it, doesnt mean it doesnt count - even if its a sole trader and not a corporation, they still have the right, Microsoft doesnt own the world... not yet anyway :p
They did. They destroyed some small-time programmer a few years ago over the use of the Windows name in a product made for Windows. A couple of years ago they also forced Ghisler to remove the Windows from Windows Commander, so that the name was changed to Total Commander.
Anyway, the trademark in question here is "Office Live," not "Live." If the other company registered it in 2002, MS doesn't have a much of a case.
Surprisingly, after several years and all it's immense legal resources, MS still can't get rid of http://www.****microsoft.com/ .
I guess they don't want that kind of publicity?
"You're suing WHAT?!"
The lawofficelive.com, autoofficelive.com, etc. websites were not registered/started by Microsoft (as the article seemed to indicate), but by the other Office Live company.
I figured it was weird for Microsoft to register such names, and when I visited those sites, they were not quite up to Microsoft's quality (not to mention the lack of MS Office branding).
The contact link indicates it's for the Office Live company in Hollywood, Calif.
When a company/individual launches an action against Apple, it's mostly regarded by Neowinians as the "little guy" fighting for a just cause against an "evil" (as if such a term actually exists outside fantasy novels) and soulless corporation.
The reality is, any company can launch any action it pleases. The courts can decide whether it has merit. Corporate entities have every right under law to defend their intellectual property when they deem necessary. May the better case win. The loser can abide by the judgement and pay costs, if required. Or theey can settle. That's the way it goes. Let's not attach a moral signifier to our legal system (specifically civil litigation.) It is inappropriate to do so, not to mention extremely immature. These are all technical issues, not moral ones.
But cases where the plaintiff claims punitive damages for something similar to this, where a product with a similar name causes increased traffic, is completely ridiculous. Your site gets more traffic, as well as better chances for purchase.
I understand that the case is for the first type of issue, copyright infringement. If he is in the case legitimately, then thats fine. But if in the back of his mind he knows he has no shot, he should not even be here. Enjoy the increased traffic while you can, and sell as much of your junko product as you can. Being #100,000,000 on Alexa rankings never brought anyone anything...a quick spike to #1000 or something, on the other hand, can do so...lol...like a tidbit on the front page about traffic spike.
Some people just dont know how to revel in good times.
But cases where the plaintiff claims punitive damages for something similar to this, where a product with a similar name causes increased traffic, is completely ridiculous. Your site gets more traffic, as well as better chances for purchase.
I understand that the case is for the first type of issue, copyright infringement. If he is in the case legitimately, then thats fine. But if in the back of his mind he knows he has no shot, he should not even be here. Enjoy the increased traffic while you can, and sell as much of your junko product as you can. Being #100,000,000 on Alexa rankings never brought anyone anything...a quick spike to #1000 or something, on the other hand, can do so...lol...like a tidbit on the front page about traffic spike.
Some people just dont know how to revel in good times.
And is it the quality traffic you are talking about? If you are talking money here, a lawsuit is a better and faster way to get what you want compared to useless traffic that has probably no potential of being converted into a revenue stream. MS should have researched that, and this is the simplest thing they screwed up on, because a simple search on the Companies House database would probably pop the company name up. I see fail to see anything except for ignorance in MS's actions, especially if the plaintiff has contacted them to resolve the issue out of court.
So they should face the same fate.
So they should face the same fate.
That was a kid wiith a site named "MikeRoweSoft"
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.