Friday, September 10, 2010

Monopolize And Poke Out Their Eyes

Intel Corporation is attempting to monopolize a word from the American English dictionary for its own private profit across all sectors of the economy.

On July 27, 2007, Intel Corporation sent a Cease and Desist order to the small U.S. enterprise Americas News Intel Publishing LLC, a publisher of business, political, and economic intelligence on Mexico.

The company charged that "because of the use of Intel's products and services across all business...the use of 'Americas New Intel Publishing' is likely to deceive and confuse consumers."

Intel Corporation's charges are without merit, and unsupported by state or federal law.

The word 'intel' as used in the intelligence and information services sectors may not be trademarked. The word 'intel' is an abbreviation for intelligence in the English language, and can be found in many dictionaries of record. The use of the word 'intel' as an abbreviation for intelligence is also common in public discourse, and used each and every day in the media.

Intel as a shorthand term in English pre-dates "INTEL" -- which is a portmanteau for "Integrated Electronics" created in 1967, by at least 10 years.

Intel Corporation coined a term identical to a pre-existing English-language word and then spent billions of dollars on its branding -- but this was at its own risk.

The right to use the word 'intel' to communicate with the public is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Americas News Intel Publishing has the right to use the word 'intel' to describe and sell intelligence products. 'Americas News Intel Publishing' and '' both incorporate the term 'intel' in the generic sense as a descriptor for the firm's intelligence products.

All of ANIP's newsletters and website information clearly defines it as "an intelligence service" on economic and political matters, completely unrelated to the manufacture of technology.

No sum of money spent to secure the public's identification of the word 'intel' with the products produced by Intel Corporation can withdraw the word, as it is used in Standard English, from the public domain. Words, as used in their literal sense, may never be trademarked.

In some well-known cases, brands like 'Kleenex' or 'Thermos' become stripped of their identity, lose their value, and end up as "generic" terms. This is the converse. In this case, Intel Corporation is attempting to extract a generic word from the English language and claim it as private property under trademark laws.

Intel Corporation offered ANIP thousands of dollars in "goodwill" money to assist it with the costs of abandoning the term 'intel' in its name and domain.

On the other hand, if ANIP resisted the change, and was "unwilling to entertain the terms proposed," the company threatened aggressive and prohibitively expensive litigation in state and federal courts, seeking "injunctive relief, damages, and reimbursement for attorneys' fees and costs."

Intel Corporation routinely issues Cease & Desist orders to small companies involved in various information and intelligence services industries that have utilized the English word intel to describe their businesses. Intel Corporation does not consider nor care whether such a description is clear, helps identify a product or services customers, or falls clearly within the domain of fair use. Its stated policy is to attack every single usage of 'intel' in a trademark, name, or domain, regardless of the fairness or legality of said usage.

Most small companies cannot endure the staggering costs of fighting unfounded litigation brought by one of the largest legal forces in the world, and must accept the "goodwill" payoff.

In October of 2009, Intel Corporation sued ANIP in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on eight federal, state, and common-law charges: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Injury To Business Reputation And Dilution Under California Law, Infringement Under California Law, Common Law Passing Off And Unfair Competition, Unfair Competition, Federal Cybersquatting.

Two prominent American trademark and intellectual property lawyers learned of the case, and took it on pro bono. Ron Coleman of Goetz Fitzpatrick of New York, and Colby Spring, a partner of Carr & Ferrell in Silicon Valley, are now defending ANIP against Intel Corporation and their legal representation, Harvey Siskind of San Francisco.

In April of 2010, Federal Judge Charles Breyer dismissed seven of these charges, but Intel Corporation filed an amended complaint. Charles Breyer admitted this new complaint, but said: "In this case, there is some force to ANIP's assertion that it is using the term 'intel' in connection with its generic meaning...ANIP's use of the term of 'intel' appears to be consistent with the term's common meaning...defining 'intel' as 'information, news'....If ANIP's assertion is true, then Intel's dilution claim, like its infringement claim, is not cognizable."

IN SHORT: If ANIP is using the term 'intel' as 'information, news' then the trademark claims against ANIP are bogus!

The trial is set for May 2011.

Intel Corporation has stated that it will appeal the case if and when it loses, and it has warned ANIP's owner that the case will go on for years. It has also stated that it will sue the owner separately. These threats have been made to compel ANIP to capitulate rather than fight the case in the court of law.

ANIP has appealed for financial help to fight this case. All funds raised go exclusively to costs associated with the defense. None are used to pay salaries or compensation. All surplus funds will be returned to donors on a proportionate basis at the conclusion of the legal process.

Donations may be made at the website or to the PayPal account

More information and most of the court records associated with this case is available at the website

No comments: