9 ms·

"We are in no way affiliated to the discontinued Google Knol." Google trademarked Knol back in the day (2007). A USPTO search shows it is still live: http://t

"We are in no way affiliated to the discontinued Google Knol." Google trademarked Knol back in the day (2007). A USPTO search shows it is still live: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:9wzrk3.2.1 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:9wz... Electronic publishing services, namely, publication of text and graphic works of others in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge; providing education, entertainment and information services, namely, providing information via the Internet in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge.

jevin 12y ago
Oh, thanks for the heads up. I wonder if this applies to us, since we're not a US based company.
- aspidistra 12y ago
  IANAL, but I was also able to find Knol from Google on the UK IPO search: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU006911796 http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU006911796 and the OHIM website, which as I understand it covers Europe-wide trademarks: https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/006911796 https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/006911796 But like I said, I am not a lawyer, do your own research, consult an expert etc etc...
  - jevin 12y ago
    Of course, I'll have that checked out! ;-)
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  You don't want to pay the ton of money it will take to have that question answered by a court. Change the name - it's demoralizing and embarrassing, but way way cheaper than trademark litigation.
saurik 12y ago
I will also point out that one does not need a registered trademark to have trademark rights in many countries, and this is certainly the case in the US: the issue is that trademarks are a protection not just for the owner, but almost more primarily for potential consumers; it is effectively a protection against people using familiarity and naming to confuse users into affiliations that don't exist. The concept of a trademark then only requires demonstrating that in your field (as trademarks are always scope limited: if one came across a laundry-mat named Knol it would not be the same issue) the name carries expectation: that people would recognize it and associate it with a specific party. It also must be stressed that it is not sufficient to have a disclaimer: the user even getting to your website to even see the disclaimer is effectively already under false pretenses, and not everyone reads those messages anyway. If anything, that you feel the need to have such a disclaimer is good evidence that people are, in fact, being confused by your naming. I, for a concrete example, am only on this comment thread because "oh, I remember Knol... I am surprised they are trying to reboot/revitalize that project", and would have read a ton of these comments under that vague premise had it not been for this top one making it clear "no, this is not Knol". This is just such an egregious example of what you can't do with identity :(.
- jevin 12y ago
  That's really helpful. Thanks. Sounds like we'll have to check this issue in details.
konstruktor 12y ago
And there's yet another company that's spelled differently, but one could argue is phonetically identical to your URL: http://www.ca.com/us/content/integration/nolio.aspx http://www.ca.com/us/content/integration/nolio.aspx
- jevin 12y ago
  Phonetically it does sound identical. I've started documenting myself on the whole naming and trademarking aspect of online services. If I have a nice list, I'll post the links in a thread here.

jevin 12y ago

Oh, thanks for the heads up. I wonder if this applies to us, since we're not a US based company.

aspidistra 12y ago
IANAL, but I was also able to find Knol from Google on the UK IPO search: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU006911796 http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU006911796 and the OHIM website, which as I understand it covers Europe-wide trademarks: https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/006911796 https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/006911796 But like I said, I am not a lawyer, do your own research, consult an expert etc etc...
- jevin 12y ago
  Of course, I'll have that checked out! ;-)
anigbrowl 12y ago
You don't want to pay the ton of money it will take to have that question answered by a court. Change the name - it's demoralizing and embarrassing, but way way cheaper than trademark litigation.

saurik 12y ago

I will also point out that one does not need a registered trademark to have trademark rights in many countries, and this is certainly the case in the US: the issue is that trademarks are a protection not just for the owner, but almost more primarily for potential consumers; it is effectively a protection against people using familiarity and naming to confuse users into affiliations that don't exist. The concept of a trademark then only requires demonstrating that in your field (as trademarks are always scope limited: if one came across a laundry-mat named Knol it would not be the same issue) the name carries expectation: that people would recognize it and associate it with a specific party. It also must be stressed that it is not sufficient to have a disclaimer: the user even getting to your website to even see the disclaimer is effectively already under false pretenses, and not everyone reads those messages anyway. If anything, that you feel the need to have such a disclaimer is good evidence that people are, in fact, being confused by your naming. I, for a concrete example, am only on this comment thread because "oh, I remember Knol... I am surprised they are trying to reboot/revitalize that project", and would have read a ton of these comments under that vague premise had it not been for this top one making it clear "no, this is not Knol". This is just such an egregious example of what you can't do with identity :(.

jevin 12y ago
That's really helpful. Thanks. Sounds like we'll have to check this issue in details.

konstruktor 12y ago

And there's yet another company that's spelled differently, but one could argue is phonetically identical to your URL: http://www.ca.com/us/content/integration/nolio.aspx http://www.ca.com/us/content/integration/nolio.aspx

jevin 12y ago
Phonetically it does sound identical. I've started documenting myself on the whole naming and trademarking aspect of online services. If I have a nice list, I'll post the links in a thread here.