OneDrive for Business

[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.

[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]

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]

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

Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name

[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]

[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.

[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'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]

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.

[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.