stupid_idiot
Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: Oct. 2006 |
|
Posted: Jan. 27 2008,04:43 |
|
To clarify: I quoted the wikipedia article to highlight the fact that although, as far as I know, "Damn Small" hasn't been registered as a trademark, it can still receive a certain degree of protection under the law.
Quote from the article:Quote | Passing off may provide a remedy in a scenario where a business has been trading under an unregistered trademark for many years, and a rival business starts using the same or a similar mark. | While DSL may not be a commercial entity, it seems that non-profits receive equal protection under (US?) law as for-profits. If so, I assume that the same laws against, e.g. tort, passing off, etc, would apply as well.
I agree that deciding whether a name is generic, or not, isn't a black-and-white question, since different people may form different opinions. It may be useful to read this section, which explains how the law determines whether or not a trademark has acquired "distinctiveness" (as opposed to being "generic"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Acquired_distinctiveness
I think there are sufficient other ways to describe a "generic" product in the same class as DSL, all of which would have a more descriptive effect to 'the layman' than "Damn Small Linux". e.g. Mini Linux distro Small-sized LiveCD distro So, I disagree with the argument that the term "Damn Small" has become genericized when referring to Linux distros.
|