Re: playboy case

From: Melissa Belvadi <silvest[_at_]maryville.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:03:39 -0500

Two thoughts:

  1. What Excite is doing seems an awful lot like what my supermarket does -- when I buy a Dole Fruit Juice (for example) product I am very likely to be handed a coupon for a Welsh product during checkout.
  2. I liked the 'burger" analogy and would like to offer one closer to home for me. As a librarian I often have patrons ask me to use "Infotrac". This is a product we don't have, and I steer them to the competing product which we do have (Ebscohost). Am I infringing on Gale's (maker of Infotrac) trademark by responding to a trademark-name request with information about a competing product? Would it make any difference if the library next door had Infotrac and I knew it? This is absurd! Excite is in a sense an artificial intelligence version of a reference librarian, and we all the time steer people from a particular brand name to some other IP (we call it information) which suits their needs and which we own in our collection.

I'm sorry the judge chose such a stupid argument about the generic meanings of playboy and playmate as part of her opinion, since that's totally irrelevant to the main issue, which seems clearly about lack of product identification confusion by the customer/user.

---
Melissa Belvadi
Systems and Services Librarian, 
Maryville University Library, St. Louis, MO 63141
silvest[_at_]maryville.edu    (314) 529-9531   fax (314) 529-9941
Received on Wed Jul 28 1999 - 19:07:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:36 GMT