trouble with new name - Possible name copyright issue #36
Comments
|
I'm familiar with this and the developer for that software "Dennis Nazarenko" has several different websites for several different variants of the Start Menu software that's very limited and not as versatile as the Classic Start software. Also keep in mind, those are, what I call, "Pay for Pro" software. The Classic Start is much more versatile and is totally free. ~Ibuprophen |
@Aokromes @ibuprophen1 |
coddec
changed the title
|
@coddec, I don't believe that there's anything legal that can be done about this for 2 reasons.
Those look like a legal technicality between the two names as well as the length in which they both have been released. This is what I've found by doing a quick research into Title 17 USC § 501 regarding the Laws Governing Copyright Infringement. Maybe someone else here can clarify/correct myself for this... :-) ~Ibuprophen |
|
@ibuprophen1 |
|
It was my pleasure to have helped... 😇 I'm quite resourceful and am also very familiar with various legal aspects in research. FYI... I do have an "Esquire" at the end of my name... LOL! Let's say that I'm a "Jack of all trades and master of none" LMAO 😵 I use my powers for good and have never turned to the Dark Side... 😱 ~Ibuprophen |
|
@ibuprophen1
Glad to know that! Hope all of the people will use powers for good 😉 😉 sadly it's not true 😞 |
|
the problem here is the names are to similar, and the target of the software the same.... |
|
Aokromes is right. Ibuprophen is completely wrong (sorry, but this is important!). It would be very easy to file a law suit because of the name clash. It doesn't matter if commercial or not. Just the name clash matters and how long the other name was around. His name is much longer in use than yours. Maybe he even branded it (you can search for that somewhere). The only remedy might be that "start menu" might not be brandable at all because it's a generic name like operating system or disk or wheel. But in combination with "Classic", that makes it different again. I would avoid any such problems or you may pay a high price - even if you can defend yourselves and win the the suit. Can't you just reuse the "Classic Shell" name, maybe with something added, for instance "rebooted" or "reloaded" or so? Or use a synonym for "shell" like "Classic Clam" or "The Classic Clam" which also sounds somewhat ironic/funny. Anyway, many thanks for continuing Ivo's efforts! I hope my comment helps you. |
|
I suggested classic shell reborn :) on that way people trying to find for classic shell will find new name. |
|
why not ... |
|
Ivo wants to keep the @XenHat @ge0rdi @Quentinix |
|
Classic Launcher, or even better, Classic Windows Launcher. |
|
Classic shell remains a good solution for the reputation gained over the years. |
|
I wasn't aware of this other discussion. Did you ask Ivo if "Classic Shell" with an addition like "reborn" is an option? If you continue with "Classic Start" there's a real clash with "Classic Start Menu". If he sues you you might win the case - but it takes resources. I would avoid this if I were you. Also, it lists both of you very near in a search engine and he might actually draw attention from you (people may mistake his effort for yours and install his program). What about just "Shell Reborn"? Reminds of Bash (Bourn again shell). Or something completely different as I wrote above like "Quahog". A unique "no name" would give you ample possibility of explaining the program and get search engine visibility. "This is the Open Source continuation of Ivo Beltchev's superb program "Classic Shell" replacement for the Windows 10 Start Menu blablabla". Several people in that other thread liked "Start Again". Should be another option. It's highly generic. Nobody should be able to sue or trademark that name. |
|
I personally think there is no need to panic nor rush anything. If they guy with For now I'd just suggest to have product name defined at one place, so that we can eventually easily change it. Though if you guys want to change the name, I don't really care. |
|
Okay @coddec... I did a bit more digging into this and, from what I had located, it looks like good news for you! I had a few windows/browser tabs open, on my PC, to the following links:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-do-trademark-search-29741.html After performing a handful of searches (using variable keywords because of the "Metadata" system that the TESS uses). I'm familiar with this type of system as a retired/former Government employee myself. I found out the following important information regarding this, potential and unnecessary panic attack that is being fueled a bit and you, @coddec, seems to be calm about it at the moment. Of course the company name "OrdinarySoft" is registered but, NOT the name Classic Start Menu nor ClassicStartMenu as these two phrases are "descriptive" in nature and NOT "specific". With that stated, ONLY the "ClassicStartMenu.com" is registered as a URL only. Now If you were to look at the "http://www.ordinarysoft.com/" website, none of the software is named "Classic Start Menu" nor "ClassicStartMenu". The only words/names "Classic Start Menu" or "ClassicStartMenu" that's being used is ONLY the URL and NOT the software itself. To add... the word/name that is slightly encompassed in any registration is "ClassicStartMenu.exe" and is specifically linked to "ClassicShell" and our good friend "Ivo Beltchev". I hope that I had explained this okay via text... :-) Please let me know if I'm wrong with one or more of the above information provided. I'm not perfect and, no matter the experience, i can be wrong. Thank you very much for your time, patience and understanding with this! :-) ~Ibuprophen |
|
This is not correct. |
|
To add... the word/name that is slightly encompassed in any registration is "ClassicStartMenu.exe" and is specifically linked to "ClassicShell" and our good friend "Ivo Beltchev". |
|
Here's another domain of his: http://www.sprigsoft.com/ It lists the program as "Windows 7 Classic Start Menu". |
|
As I understand it, there are a few things to consider here. FYI, this is US specific.
I am not an attorney, but I had to research this stuff for my own trademark issues years ago. The bottom line is that anyone can sue for anything, and even a brief engagement would be a mess, especially for an unfunded project. Also, I do not know but don't believe that point 1 above is affected by whether or not one charges for the product. It should also be noted that, since this has now been discussed openly and publicly, it could not be claimed that the issue was unknown. It doesn't change the legal argument, but might be taken as conscious disregard for the rights of the other party, i.e. you were aware there may be an issue and went forward anyway. Full disclosure, I am the person who suggested "Start Again" as a possible new name in the earlier discussion. |
|
OH MY!!! 😨 Please don't think that my information is specific to misleading and such. I'm REALLY NOT trying to contradict, condescend, argue, debate, etc... I'm only trying to provide some input regarding this whole mess and am in no way outright lying about this either. Everyone is making a good point but, unlike myself, to state that I (or anyone else) is completely wrong without providing any legal reference nor prescience doesn't make it "legally" correct. I believe that this form of debate is really going in circles and isn't getting anywhere at all. I believe that the best advice that I can provide @coddec is to ask an Attorney who specializes in "Patent/Copyright Law". I will no longer comment on this specific issue and I truly hope that this works out for the best with @coddec. I don't want to see this project end in any way and I'll do what I can to provide what help I can for making/keeping this project as great as it ever has been. Peace and Love! ~Ibuprophen |
Agreed. |
That's why I suggested to contact FSF. The project may get free legal advice from them. |
|
it's possible @bolera ? |
|
We already did a poll for the new name, we could do a new one. |
|
@ibuprophen1 & @bolera Both your insight and help is extremely helpful. I would appreciate if you could continue to help us in your best ability. I don't think anyone is trying to "win" here, nor it is necessary. |
This is also true for the EU as I had experience with branding conflict before over here. It doesn't matter if the software is paid or free. As long as the functionality is similar and the name is in use for longer (something that can easily be proven for software), it stands in court. That much I know for sure as a company I worked with had to settle for damages against the software with the original name for this particular reason and it was quite costly. The best advice given here already is to contact the FSF for this as there are no funds for proper legal advice. |
|
Why don't you just ask the holder of the name for permission? Just email ordinary soft, tell them you have this open source project, tell them you accidentally renamed it to a name similar to his registered name, and ask if they are ok with it. Once you have their response in writing (email) there's no problem anymore. Only if they object to you actually using the name, this might be a problem and warrant a new new name. If you're up for it, you could take it to court. This is not only a matter of who was first. There's also a rule preventing you from registering common words. I would think "start menu" is such a common word. But at that point, you'd have to rely on a judge to agree. Which is probably a little more risk then you'd like to take over a name. Disclaimer: not a lawyer. Not even a US citizen. |
|
"Start Menu Reborn" is nice and simple. It is catchy. It states what the functionality is and won't annoy anyone. Of course the accidentally-conflicting original choice is unfortunate but that's the way it is. You can't have conflicts as it simply confuses and does not allow differentiation between the different offerings. "Start Menu Reborn" is not only catchy but it gives the product a feeling of having a regenerative and productive quality. |
|
Well. Yes. It's a nice name. It's catchy, and everything you said. I'm just not sure whether that would constitute as a reason to use it. Just because it fits the product, and it sounds nice doesn't really give you the implicit right to use it. For example. I would like to open up a webshop. Maybe some cloud services in the future. When trying to register my domain name, I find out that some other webshop has already registered amazon.com. Just because it fits my shop, doesn't give me the right to the amazon.com domain. |
|
@XenHat had opened up a Gitter link specifically for name suggestions. If nobody is there, you can make your suggestions and one of the developers will see it when they have a moment to look. ~Ibuprophen |
coddec
added
the
high priority
* Build: Add symbols to 7z archive It is much smaller than ZIP (15MB vs 34MB). * Build: Don't create source package There is no need to create package with sources as sources for given release can be easily obtained from git. * AppVeyor: Remove unneeded install script __MakeFinal.bat now handles it. * Build: Less verbose output * Build: Support for version suffix AppVeyor may add suffix to version (X.Y.Z-abc) in case of PR builds. * AppVeyor: Disable shallow clone To be able to use git commands (in source indexing script). Use history depth 1 instead. * Build: Add source index to PDBs Add source information to PDBs so that source files can be retrieved from Github by debugger.
|
Congrats on the new name, looks good! |
I have found this app, maybe they will force to change name.
http://www.classicstartmenu.com/
Gitter:
https://gitter.im/passionate-coder/Branding
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: