To be honest, we did not see this one coming. This is low even by Intel Corporation's mediocre standards.
In its June 11, 2010 filing, Intel Corporation informs the UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT that:
"Defendant’s website also trumpets the fact that its counsel is representing it pro bono (while it curiously solicits donations for its lawsuit with Intel). A sensational claim by Defendant, yet one that is not only irrelevant but untrue."
This is not a sensational claim. This is not an untrue claim. And there is nothing curious about raising donations for a lawsuit that has pro bono representation. Intel Corporation and its counsel knows full well that pro bono representation does not typically cover out-of-pocket expenses.
For the record, and as we have previously stated here and elsewhere:
1) Our legal team is representing us 100% pro bono.
2) All monies that we raise by donations have been and will be used EXCLUSIVELY for incidental expenses incurred in the defense against the lawsuit by Intel Corporation.
3) Once we triumph, any surplus cash from donations will be returned to donors in a proportional amount. We are still running a surplus, and careful records are being kept to ensure just reimbursements.
4) Nobody in this defense is drawing upon donations for salary. Filing fees, courier services, and the like are examples of out-of-pocket incidentals being consumed. Hard costs deemed essential. Not so much as a cup of coffee has been purchased with the donation funds.
5) We have used all donations received to date with the utmost frugality.
The longer this trial lasts, the more it will cost us. Intel Corporation knows this. In fact, a reasonable person could easily conclude that Intel Corporation, with its immeasurably deep pockets, is counting on our limited resources eventually accruing in its favor. What should your response to this petty, bogus, and haughty charge be?
Look to your right and donate to our cause now!
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Intel Corporation Asks Court To Deny
Intel Corporation has asked the Honorable Judge Charles Breyer to deny our motion to dismiss. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for July 2.
The Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss does proceed on the basis we predicted. Specifically, Intel Corporation has highlighted the improbable and almost borderline claim that our customers, actual or prospective, may overlap with their customers because Intel Corporation publishes newsletters:
• The parties each utilize INTEL-formative marks (e.g. INTEL v. LATIN INTEL) and Intel uses a large family of INTEL-formative marks;
• To offer related (if not competitive) products and services (e.g., newsletters that address business and economic developments in Latin America, among other regions);
• To a specifically identified and significantly overlapping customer base (e.g., executives of the majority of U.S. Fortune 500 companies); and
• Such conduct is likely to cause confusion amongst Defendant’s actual and prospective customers.
(The Plaintiff's "likelihood of confusion" argument is, in fact, so weak that they are now focusing on a dilution argument. Read on.)
Intel has pled that:
• An astounding 86% of consumers who associate the term 'intel' with any word, definition or mark (not just a trademark) associate the term with Intel Corporation; and
• Intel will make the requisite showing of the likelihood of the loss of such distinctiveness “through the submission of survey evidence,” which is the standard method to establish an actionable likelihood of dilution.
The Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss does proceed on the basis we predicted. Specifically, Intel Corporation has highlighted the improbable and almost borderline claim that our customers, actual or prospective, may overlap with their customers because Intel Corporation publishes newsletters:
• The parties each utilize INTEL-formative marks (e.g. INTEL v. LATIN INTEL) and Intel uses a large family of INTEL-formative marks;
(INTEL, a coined portmanteau for integrated electronics; LatinIntel, a generic English-language descriptor for Latin American intelligence gathering)
• To offer related (if not competitive) products and services (e.g., newsletters that address business and economic developments in Latin America, among other regions);
(Yes, this is where Intel Corporation asserts that among its many activities in Latin America, it publishes newsletters. Nobody, and certainly not a federal court judge, will for a second believe that the California-based technology manufacturer has any business as a "SPECIALIZED INFORMATION PUBLISHER.")
• To a specifically identified and significantly overlapping customer base (e.g., executives of the majority of U.S. Fortune 500 companies); and
(Yes, the type of customer base that the Mexico Watch Intelligence Service targeted was indeed top executives of global companies, executives with significant responsibilities in Mexico. From the Specialized Information Publishers Association: "The market consists of companies or individuals within companies who need specialized information about their industries that may not be available or is extremely difficult to find without the efforts of a specialized-information publisher and are willing to pay high prices for that information.")
• Such conduct is likely to cause confusion amongst Defendant’s actual and prospective customers.
(The Plaintiff's "likelihood of confusion" argument is, in fact, so weak that they are now focusing on a dilution argument. Read on.)
Intel has pled that:
• An astounding 86% of consumers who associate the term 'intel' with any word, definition or mark (not just a trademark) associate the term with Intel Corporation; and
(What is astounding about this sentence? How about the choice of the word astounding? This survey is surprising because it suggests 14% of people who think of intel as a word don't even recognize Intel Corp.?? We do not know, because this survey, its methodology, its authority, and its statistical confidence, have not been divulged. We conducted one unscientific online survey seeking one or more definitions for "intel" and found 33% thought it meant one thing, Intel Corporation; 33% thought it meant two things, shorthand for intelligence and Intel Corporation; 33% thought it meant more than two things, but at least the previous pair of definitions.)
• Intel will make the requisite showing of the likelihood of the loss of such distinctiveness “through the submission of survey evidence,” which is the standard method to establish an actionable likelihood of dilution.
(Would, not will. But only if Judge Charles Breyer lets Intel Corporation's flagitious complaint survive.)
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Time To Cap The Well
We've endured the Intel Corporation's ruthless, disingenuous, and irresponsible attacks since July 2007, so their defeat will bring us some personal, emotional satisfaction. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
Because at the end of the day, this is a battle in the interest of reason and public good, not a quixotic matter for individual celebration. Quite the opposite.
The overriding goal here is (1) to establish some limits on the ability of private companies to hijack federal trademark law as they maneuver to strip the public domain of our words, symbols, images, and otherwise unravel the threads of our common fabric; and (2) to serve notice on corporate abusers that they may not usurp the legal system at will in order to undermine the spirit of the law and further narrow private agendas, especially at the expense of other people's livelihoods.
Both of these issues represent very real risks, and must be taken seriously, confronted with eternal, patient vigilance. At their dark heart, these issues are literally evil.
It's hard as hell to stand up to these egregious abuses. It is, in fact, terribly difficult to fathom the sacrifices one must endure until one has lived it. What a sickening, crushing injustice it would be if Intel Corporation were allowed to continue soiling our waters with their filth and for their profit.
So on July 2, everyone please give a little silent cheer at the sidelines for Ron Coleman and Colby Springer, the lawyers that have selflessly taken on one of the world's largest private legal forces history has ever known. That day, they will be arguing our case that Intel Corporation's legal complaint should be dismissed once and for all. Ron and Colby are doing this pro bono, and at the end of the day, and hopefully at the end of that day, when victory is ultimately achieved, they will remain the real heroes of this story. Let our thoughts give them wings.
Because at the end of the day, this is a battle in the interest of reason and public good, not a quixotic matter for individual celebration. Quite the opposite.
The overriding goal here is (1) to establish some limits on the ability of private companies to hijack federal trademark law as they maneuver to strip the public domain of our words, symbols, images, and otherwise unravel the threads of our common fabric; and (2) to serve notice on corporate abusers that they may not usurp the legal system at will in order to undermine the spirit of the law and further narrow private agendas, especially at the expense of other people's livelihoods.
Both of these issues represent very real risks, and must be taken seriously, confronted with eternal, patient vigilance. At their dark heart, these issues are literally evil.
It's hard as hell to stand up to these egregious abuses. It is, in fact, terribly difficult to fathom the sacrifices one must endure until one has lived it. What a sickening, crushing injustice it would be if Intel Corporation were allowed to continue soiling our waters with their filth and for their profit.
So on July 2, everyone please give a little silent cheer at the sidelines for Ron Coleman and Colby Springer, the lawyers that have selflessly taken on one of the world's largest private legal forces history has ever known. That day, they will be arguing our case that Intel Corporation's legal complaint should be dismissed once and for all. Ron and Colby are doing this pro bono, and at the end of the day, and hopefully at the end of that day, when victory is ultimately achieved, they will remain the real heroes of this story. Let our thoughts give them wings.
MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING IMMINENT
Fellow Abuse Watchers:
***THE MOST IMPORTANT DATE IN THREE YEARS OF PROCEEDINGS IS SET FOR JULY 2. ***
When it comes to legal proceedings with Intel Corporation, legal dates shift around so much that life-planning starts to feel like whacking moles. Except you never seem to whack anything, no matter how many quarters you empty into the slot.
Having said that, some new dates were finally set last week: (Spoiler alert, July 2 is the doozy.)
This Friday, June 11, Intel Corporation will file its opposition brief. It will oppose our Motion to Dismiss, possibly leading with its newest implausibly ludicrous claim that our use of the English word "intel" is hurting its newsletter publishing business.
We have one week to respond with a reply brief. On Friday, June 18, our legal team will reaffirm our motion to dismiss and refute any new points drummed up in the opposition brief -- undoubtedly bursting at the seams with every conceivable tangent that opposing counsel may dredge up during their billable hours orgies.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: The Motion to Dismiss Hearing, formerly scheduled for Friday, June 25, was moved to to Friday, July 2.
This is the hearing in which a Federal Judge will once and for all reject Intel Corporation's pernicious, abusive legal campaign to break the back our small company in a gross display of corporate greed.
Unless, of course, the Federal Judge lets some part of Intel Corporation's legal complaint survive.
***At this point, it looks highly likely that Intel Corporation will suffer a long-overdue, humiliating defeat.***
And sure, we've endured the company's ruthless, disingenuous, and irresponsible attacks since July 2007, so their defeat will bring us some personal, emotional satisfaction. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
Because at the end of the day, this is a battle in the interest of reason and public good, not a quixotic matter for individual celebration. Quite the opposite.
The overriding goal here is (1) to establish some limits on the ability of private companies to hijack federal trademark law as they maneuver to strip the public domain of our words, symbols, images, and otherwise unravel the threads of our common fabric; and (2) to serve notice on corporate abusers that they may not usurp the legal system at will in order to undermine the spirit of the law and further narrow, private agendas, especially at the expense of other people's livelihoods.
Both of these issues represent very real risks, and must be taken seriously, confronted with eternal, patient vigilance. At their dark heart, these issues are literally evil.
It's hard as hell to stand up to these egregious abuses. It is, in fact, terribly difficult to fathom the sacrifices one must endure until one has lived it. What a sickening, crushing injustice it would be if Intel Corporation were allowed to continue soiling our waters with their filth and for their profit.
So on July 2, everyone please give a little silent cheer at the sidelines for Ron Coleman and Colby Springer, the lawyers that have selflessly taken on one of the world's largest private legal forces history has ever known. That day, they will be arguing our case that Intel Corporation's legal complaint should be dismissed once and for all. Ron and Colby are doing this pro bono, and at the end of the day, and hopefully at the end of that day, when victory is ultimately achieved, they will remain the real heroes of this story. Let our thoughts give them wings.
***THE MOST IMPORTANT DATE IN THREE YEARS OF PROCEEDINGS IS SET FOR JULY 2. ***
When it comes to legal proceedings with Intel Corporation, legal dates shift around so much that life-planning starts to feel like whacking moles. Except you never seem to whack anything, no matter how many quarters you empty into the slot.
Having said that, some new dates were finally set last week: (Spoiler alert, July 2 is the doozy.)
This Friday, June 11, Intel Corporation will file its opposition brief. It will oppose our Motion to Dismiss, possibly leading with its newest implausibly ludicrous claim that our use of the English word "intel" is hurting its newsletter publishing business.
We have one week to respond with a reply brief. On Friday, June 18, our legal team will reaffirm our motion to dismiss and refute any new points drummed up in the opposition brief -- undoubtedly bursting at the seams with every conceivable tangent that opposing counsel may dredge up during their billable hours orgies.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: The Motion to Dismiss Hearing, formerly scheduled for Friday, June 25, was moved to to Friday, July 2.
This is the hearing in which a Federal Judge will once and for all reject Intel Corporation's pernicious, abusive legal campaign to break the back our small company in a gross display of corporate greed.
Unless, of course, the Federal Judge lets some part of Intel Corporation's legal complaint survive.
***At this point, it looks highly likely that Intel Corporation will suffer a long-overdue, humiliating defeat.***
And sure, we've endured the company's ruthless, disingenuous, and irresponsible attacks since July 2007, so their defeat will bring us some personal, emotional satisfaction. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
Because at the end of the day, this is a battle in the interest of reason and public good, not a quixotic matter for individual celebration. Quite the opposite.
The overriding goal here is (1) to establish some limits on the ability of private companies to hijack federal trademark law as they maneuver to strip the public domain of our words, symbols, images, and otherwise unravel the threads of our common fabric; and (2) to serve notice on corporate abusers that they may not usurp the legal system at will in order to undermine the spirit of the law and further narrow, private agendas, especially at the expense of other people's livelihoods.
Both of these issues represent very real risks, and must be taken seriously, confronted with eternal, patient vigilance. At their dark heart, these issues are literally evil.
It's hard as hell to stand up to these egregious abuses. It is, in fact, terribly difficult to fathom the sacrifices one must endure until one has lived it. What a sickening, crushing injustice it would be if Intel Corporation were allowed to continue soiling our waters with their filth and for their profit.
So on July 2, everyone please give a little silent cheer at the sidelines for Ron Coleman and Colby Springer, the lawyers that have selflessly taken on one of the world's largest private legal forces history has ever known. That day, they will be arguing our case that Intel Corporation's legal complaint should be dismissed once and for all. Ron and Colby are doing this pro bono, and at the end of the day, and hopefully at the end of that day, when victory is ultimately achieved, they will remain the real heroes of this story. Let our thoughts give them wings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
