[HN Gopher] Decision: Red Hat, Inc. vs. Daniel Pocock / Software... ___________________________________________________________________ Decision: Red Hat, Inc. vs. Daniel Pocock / Software Freedom Institute SA Author : jaboutboul Score : 48 points Date : 2022-03-16 19:36 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.adrforum.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.adrforum.com) | jaboutboul wrote: | There's a lot more to it than just this decision. Google the | complainants name. | tzs wrote: | > Google the complainants name | | The complainant is Red Hat. I don't see anything interesting | when I Google them. Googling the respondent, Daniel Pocock, is | a lot more interesting. | forty wrote: | Some hint in the comments here https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/ | rwmj wrote: | Comments on the LWN article are interesting: | https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/ | kashyapc wrote: | Yeah, this particular comment[1] is quite damning--the person | got booted by FOSDEM, FSF Europe, Debian[2], Alpine Linux and | more. I wonder if the court considered all this past evidence. | | [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/887955/ | | [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- | bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953378;msg... | the_why_of_y wrote: | Mr. Pocock is well known in the Debian community. | | https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117 | zenincognito wrote: | >>The domain name is not used in bad faith, given that the web | site directs people back to the trademark owner's site, doesn't | ask for money, doesn't run banner advertising, doesn't ask for | personal registration. It has been demonstrated that the | trademark owner is suppressing the blogs of some volunteers with | authorship rights and Respondent's site exists to give those | voices an equal status. The founding documents published by the | trademark owner (Exhibit 104) encourage us to give voice to all | sides. | | Fail to understand fedora's motives here other than censorship | zozbot234 wrote: | You have to enforce your trademarks otherwise they might be | declared invalid. Regardless of the final decision, what RedHat | did seems pretty normal to me. | atdrummond wrote: | This notion that surefire mark enforcement can only be | achieved through blanket legal action against all potential | abusers of the mark is parroted on HN repeatedly; however, | the real world situation is a bit more complex. A firm will | not lose their trademarks if they don't aggressively sue each | and every person/business who might potentially be infringing | upon the firm's marks. In fact, for firms like Red Hat who | are actively selling a product, (and therefore utilizing the | mark in commerce and in a way that makes that mark very well | known to potential customers) said ongoing business | operations typically ensure that courts will regard one's | mark as defended and active, especially if one ensures that | the firm does go after the most very egregious violations. | | TL;DR: Firms do not need to obsessively litigate against | every single person using their mark. | tialaramex wrote: | Fedora doesn't like Pocock because - I think many people would | agree - he's an asshole. However, as Thomas More puts it in the | play about his life and betrayal, "there's no law against | that". | pipapocock wrote: | Red Hat may want to register domain names like weheartpocock, | webetternotmakepocock, whyhavepococksparentsmadepocock, | everybodylovesapocock, pococksizematters and wait for the | boomerang complaint. | sofixa wrote: | If anyone wants a TLDR: | | > DECISION Complainant having failed to establish all three | elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes | that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was | brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the | administrative proceeding | | RH are markedly less nice than before IBM took over, which is a | pity. | nix23 wrote: | Oh look RedHat got that IBM spirit finally ;) | MadsRC wrote: | The respondent is quite the character... | | He's been expelled from the Debian project/community (source: | https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117) and he's in pretty bad | standing with Free Software Foundation Europe. | jffry wrote: | If this seems too long to read, it's about a domain name | registration dispute between RedHat and a volunteer who | registered wemakefedora.org (RedHat was seeking to gain control | over the domain). | | The arbiter not only found against RedHat but also made a | declaration that the dispute was brought in bad faith. | | The condensed excerpt is: | | "Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or | legitimate interests in the <wemakefedora.org> domain name both | because Complainant consented to Respondent's use of the domain | name so long as the website followed Complainant's trademark | guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate | noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for | commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to | tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark." | | and from the conclusion, | | "In light of these circumstances the Panel finds that Complainant | brought this proceeding despite having clear knowledge of | Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the domain name | and that the proceeding was brought primarily to harass the | domain-name holder." ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-16 23:00 UTC)