Reply to: OneDrive for Business

[Maximilian]

microsofts biggest mistake was not preparing its customers for the move to onedrive business, the limitations are ridiculously annoying especially the 'long file name' error and unaccepted characters. How do they expect an enterprise of say 5000 to 10000 users to change the file name on each and every file! they are basically forcing us to buy some other third party software, and generate problematic scripts before we can use the service. They needed to have put a little more thought into one drive.

[minestrone]

Untrue. You could have a business/product SkyDrive based on flying.

Personally I still think being an ISP isn't that close... but also trying to come up with a product name to use around the world that doesn't infringe anyone in any country must be difficult. What if Belgium has a company "One Internet" as an ISP?

*cough* *splutter*

Court says Skype's name is too similar to Sky's - BBC News

[minestrone]

No, the feckin information was not helpful.

[minestrone]

Latest one tonight was trying to save a file into the folder

Create the file... copy contents in... save file...

"Sorry you do not have permissions"

continually, had to save everything offline and email it.

holy feckin mother of ****** jesus

[Ticktock]

Well next time you see him maybe you can ask him about the Quality Inns example I posted.

That example is quite straightforward.

The conflict isn't over the names "McDonalds" vs "McSleep", it is over the use of the prefix "Mc" with a generic word, as your quote clearly states. This would stem from "McNuggets", "McMuffin", "McChicken", "McWrap", etc - a clearly established branding pattern of taking a product and sticking "Mc" before it to denote that it is a McDonalds product.

Personally I think it's still a bit tenuous, as all of the McDonalds products are food related, but that is the basis of the ruling. It's also why you have companies in non-food industries called McDonald without there being an infringement.

[TheFaQQer]

Well next time you see him maybe you can ask him about the Quality Inns example I posted.

I think that would be an interesting one in English law

I still think that it was wrong that Mohammed Al-Fayed won the rights to the Harrods domain name to take it away from someone who had an equally valid right to the name, though.

[minestrone]

I'd recommend reading some of the books by Professor David Bainbridge, who is widely regarded as an expert in this kind of area - particularly in the Internet age.

Or certainly he was when he was my law lecturer at university.

Well next time you see him maybe you can ask him about the Quality Inns example I posted.

[TheFaQQer]

I'm applying for a trademark just now, it is not as black and white as being in another industry gets you carte blanche to use a name freely.

I'd recommend reading some of the books by Professor David Bainbridge, who is widely regarded as an expert in this kind of area - particularly in the Internet age.

Or certainly he was when he was my law lecturer at university.

[minestrone]

I'm applying for a trademark just now, it is not as black and white as being in another industry gets you carte blanche to use a name freely.

[minestrone]

In 1988, Quality Inns (now Choice Hotels) was planning to open a new chain of economy hotels under the name "McSleep." After McDonald's demanded that Quality Inns not use the name because it infringed, the hotel company filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that "McSleep" did not infringe. McDonald's counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Eventually, McDonald's prevailed. The court's opinion noted that the prefix "Mc" added to a generic word has acquired secondary meaning, so that in the eyes of the public it means McDonalds, and therefore the name "McSleep" would infringe on McDonald's trademarks.[23]

[TheFaQQer]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Qualit...onald%27s_Corp.

Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name

[minestrone]

It's interesting that they don't get a mention on Wikipedia about any of their wins against non-food companies. But this is going very off-topic now.

They may try, and people may back down, but from what I can see there is little legal precedent.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Qualit...onald%27s_Corp.

[TheFaQQer]

Not true, McDonalds will go after pretty much any thing that uses Mc in a name. They win some and they lose some but they don't confine that action just to fast food..

It's interesting that they don't get a mention on Wikipedia about any of their wins against non-food companies. But this is going very off-topic now.

They may try, and people may back down, but from what I can see there is little legal precedent.

[minestrone]

Untrue. You could have a business/product SkyDrive based on flying.

Personally I still think being an ISP isn't that close... but also trying to come up with a product name to use around the world that doesn't infringe anyone in any country must be difficult. What if Belgium has a company "One Internet" as an ISP?

I can download a film on my SKY box or I can pay Microsoft for it and get it downloaded onto my XBOX. I can also access OneDrive on my XBOX.

[minestrone]

Just because they are a trademark doesn't mean it can't be used, but you have to be in a related industry to claim that.

For example, Granada TV attempted to stop Ford calling their car the Granada because they aren't in the same industry; whereas whoever created the Wombles managed to stop a company calling themselves Womble Skip Hire on the grounds that one of the key characteristics of the Wombles was that they removed rubbish from Wimbledon, and therefore performed the same kind of service as a skip hire company.



That's the reason that they didn't argue - it would have been too close. Once could attempt to argue that the trademark is too broad (see Portaloo's attempts to stop the name Portablast - a portable explosive - on the grounds that they had a trademark on "porta") but I'd assume that Microsoft didn't think that they would win that one.

Not true, McDonalds will go after pretty much any thing that uses Mc in a name. They win some and they lose some but they don't confine that action just to fast food..