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 'latinintel.com' 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 http://intel4intelligence.blogspot.com/ or to the PayPal account donate@intelfortheintelligent.com.
More information and most of the court records associated with this case is available at the website http://intel4intelligence.blogspot.com/
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Just The Cold, Hard, Ugly Facts!
FACT #1: Intel Corporation routinely issued Cease & Desist orders to small companies involved in various information and intelligence services industries that have utilized the English word intel to describe their business.
FACT #2: 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.
FACT #3: Intel Corporation routinely offers these small companies -- using 'intel' in the generic, English-language sense of the word -- THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in order to compel them to accept a changeover without going to court.
FACT #4: Intel Corporation informs all of these same small companies that if they do not accept a "goodwill payment" and abandon any usage of 'intel' that it will mount a prohibitively expensive federal lawsuit against them, and spare no expense it its prosecution.
FACT #5: Despite what the company may say, this IS NOT STANDARD intellectual property policy for those firms that have ill-advisedly chosen English-language words as their trademark. Common examples are Shell, Apple, and Vans. These companies will police and defend their trademark when it is used outside of the fair-use public domain. INTEL CORPORATION IS ONE OF THE FEW LARGE COMPANIES THAT IS SO OPENLY AND AGGRESSIVELY PURSING THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM, USING ITS FINANCIAL MIGHT TO FORCE CAPITULATION AND BANKRUPTCIES OF SMALL COMPANIES ACROSS AMERICA AND THE WORLD!!!
FACT #2: 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.
FACT #3: Intel Corporation routinely offers these small companies -- using 'intel' in the generic, English-language sense of the word -- THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in order to compel them to accept a changeover without going to court.
FACT #4: Intel Corporation informs all of these same small companies that if they do not accept a "goodwill payment" and abandon any usage of 'intel' that it will mount a prohibitively expensive federal lawsuit against them, and spare no expense it its prosecution.
FACT #5: Despite what the company may say, this IS NOT STANDARD intellectual property policy for those firms that have ill-advisedly chosen English-language words as their trademark. Common examples are Shell, Apple, and Vans. These companies will police and defend their trademark when it is used outside of the fair-use public domain. INTEL CORPORATION IS ONE OF THE FEW LARGE COMPANIES THAT IS SO OPENLY AND AGGRESSIVELY PURSING THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM, USING ITS FINANCIAL MIGHT TO FORCE CAPITULATION AND BANKRUPTCIES OF SMALL COMPANIES ACROSS AMERICA AND THE WORLD!!!
FACT BOX: Intel Corp. -- Shoot First, Let Bankruptcy Sort Them Out
(Fact Box At End)
A few weeks ago, we received yet another communication from a company that had been sued by Intel Corporation. This company, like our own, used "intel" in its domain name. And this company, like our own, is engaged in the business of providing information and news. The owner of this small company told us that the legal costs associated with defending himself were beyond the capacity of his firm to absorb, and that he would probably be forced out of business. At best, the costs of rebranding and reworking his entire public relations network (social media website, etc.) would represent a crushing expense that the company may or may not survive.
We have received contact from numerous companies, and it is clear that there are multiple examples of Intel Corporation attacking private entities using the English-language word in its public usage context.
Let's set out some facts.
FACT #1: Intel Corporation routinely issued Cease & Desist orders to small companies involved in various information and intelligence services industries that have utilized the English word intel to describe their business.
FACT #2: 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.
FACT #3: Intel Corporation routinely offers these small companies -- using 'intel' in the generic, English-language sense of the word -- THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in order to compel them to accept a changeover without going to court.
FACT #4: Intel Corporation informs all of these same small companies that if they do not accept a "goodwill payment" and abandon any usage of 'intel' that it will mount a prohibitively expensive federal lawsuit against them, and spare no expense it its prosecution.
FACT #5: Despite what the company may say, this IS NOT STANDARD intellectual property policy for those firms that have ill-advisedly chosen English-language words as their trademark. Common examples are Shell, Apple, and Vans. These companies will police and defend their trademark when it is used outside of the fair-use public domain. INTEL CORPORATION IS ONE OF THE FEW LARGE COMPANIES THAT IS SO OPENLY AND AGGRESSIVELY PURSING THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM, USING ITS FINANCIAL MIGHT TO FORCE CAPITULATION AND BANKRUPTCIES OF SMALL COMPANIES ACROSS AMERICA AND THE WORLD!!!
A few weeks ago, we received yet another communication from a company that had been sued by Intel Corporation. This company, like our own, used "intel" in its domain name. And this company, like our own, is engaged in the business of providing information and news. The owner of this small company told us that the legal costs associated with defending himself were beyond the capacity of his firm to absorb, and that he would probably be forced out of business. At best, the costs of rebranding and reworking his entire public relations network (social media website, etc.) would represent a crushing expense that the company may or may not survive.
We have received contact from numerous companies, and it is clear that there are multiple examples of Intel Corporation attacking private entities using the English-language word in its public usage context.
Let's set out some facts.
FACT #1: Intel Corporation routinely issued Cease & Desist orders to small companies involved in various information and intelligence services industries that have utilized the English word intel to describe their business.
FACT #2: 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.
FACT #3: Intel Corporation routinely offers these small companies -- using 'intel' in the generic, English-language sense of the word -- THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in order to compel them to accept a changeover without going to court.
FACT #4: Intel Corporation informs all of these same small companies that if they do not accept a "goodwill payment" and abandon any usage of 'intel' that it will mount a prohibitively expensive federal lawsuit against them, and spare no expense it its prosecution.
FACT #5: Despite what the company may say, this IS NOT STANDARD intellectual property policy for those firms that have ill-advisedly chosen English-language words as their trademark. Common examples are Shell, Apple, and Vans. These companies will police and defend their trademark when it is used outside of the fair-use public domain. INTEL CORPORATION IS ONE OF THE FEW LARGE COMPANIES THAT IS SO OPENLY AND AGGRESSIVELY PURSING THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM, USING ITS FINANCIAL MIGHT TO FORCE CAPITULATION AND BANKRUPTCIES OF SMALL COMPANIES ACROSS AMERICA AND THE WORLD!!!
Monday, August 9, 2010
The War Of Attrition Grinds On
Here comes the expensive part, and we need your donations more than ever. Intel Corporation has stated that they will try and force us to surrender by making this case as long and as expensive as possible, and they have already stated an intention to appeal, even though they have not yet lost at the federal district level. (They will, and they will lose the appeal, too.)
Any amount will help. We encourage people to donate $5. We'll make you a cappuccino next time we see you. Use the link on the right-hand side of the page.
A very pithy and unbiased summary of the dispute to date may be found here.
The Court Management Conference yielded the following schedule for the trial proceedings:
• Lay Discovery Cut-off: December 1, 2010
• Designation of Experts Deadline: December 20, 2010
• Designation of Rebuttal Experts Deadline: January 5, 2011
• Expert Discovery Cut-off: February 1, 2011
• Last Day to File Dispositive Motions: February 16, 2011
• Pretrial Disclosures: March 25, 2011
• Pretrial Conference: April 8, 2011
• Trial: May 9, 2011
HOWEVER, it is important to note that we will be moving for a summary judgment, and this is a very likely scenario. The hearing for the motion for summary judgment is not until Mar. 4. Until that time, the rest of these dates apply.
This is where Intel Corporation will insist on a burdensome level of discovery and depositions, just to create a strain on our finances. But we've got enough canned food and bottled water for years, so bring it on!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Court Management Conference
Friday, August 5th is the date for the Court Management Conference. We will have dates and a scenario for how this matter will proceed once we can digest the event.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
VIDEO EDITING HELP!!!
We are currently working with the California rap artist Grammatical B to develop a music video for the Internet that documents Intel Corporation's greed and abuse in this lawsuit.
Anyone who can donate video-editing or production expertise to this cause please write to contact@intelfortheintelligent.com.
The video will be broadcast far and wide, creating embarrassment for Intel Corporation but also potentially bringing fame and accolades to any of the video's creators!
Intel Corporation's Complaints Not Cognizable!
We have been asked by followers of this blog to give a concise update to the trial's progress.
1) U.S. Federal Judge Charles Breyer has agreed to give Intel Corporation its day in court, though he made it clear that he is VERY skeptical of the company's bogus complaints. In fact, he said:
http://www.latinintel.com/Order_Denying_Motion_To_Dismiss.pdf
2) Intel Corporation has acknowledged that the generic sense of intel is "shorthand for gathering and analyzing information." And nobody has every disputed that is exactly what the Mexico Watch Intelligence Service did, when its newsletters and briefs were in publication. Therefore, UNLESS THE JUDGE CHANGES HIS MIND, WE WILL DEFINITELY WIN THIS CASE.
3) Intel Corporation responds to this quandary by stating that it will produce a survey that proves that people think of the company brand INTEL before they think of informational intel when they hear the word.
Under this standard, words like apple, converse, mango, puma, vans, and virgin would no longer belong to the public domain. Since that scenario is patently absurd, so is that standard, and we are confident that the judge in this case will agree and rule against these frivolous and abusive complaints.
Our Monopoly Abuse Is Not Like Your Monopoly Abuse
This blog is not about Intel Corporation's widespread and well-known abusive practices as a monopolist. That's gotten them into trouble in Korea, Japan, the European Union, the United States, and elsewhere. Plenty of bloggers are out there to document this.
But we like to 'chime' in from time to time. "Bum-bum-bum-buuuum. Our coercive practices aren't like YOUR coercive practices."
Many people are aware that on Wednesday, August 4, Intel Corporation "settled" the case brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission. What does a settlement mean here?
It means that Intel Corporation knew it would lose, and agreed to nearly all of the FTC's terms, but can now deny breaking the law and maintain the official position that the FTC's complaints are all false. It's akin to pleading 'no contest' rather than 'guilty' in a court of law.
What were the FTC's allegations? The answer would fill hundreds of pages, and in fact does. But a very brief version from The Washington Post:
"The agency investigated Intel's practices going back at least 10 years and found the company 'stepped well over the line.' The FTC said Intel told customers it would not sell products to them unless they agreed to stop doing business with Intel's rivals. The agency also said Intel redesigned its central processing units, or CPUs, to throw off competitors by making it harder for their chips to work with Intel's."
Sadly, in technology, monopoly abuses means essential consumer products are kept much more expensive and unnecessarily so -- a fact that widens the digital divide and keeps vital tools out of reach of billions. The only winners are the shareholders of Intel Corporation, who enjoy profits artificially inflated by rents. In addition, Intel Corporation has retarded innovation through its disregard for legal market practices.
But we like to 'chime' in from time to time. "Bum-bum-bum-buuuum. Our coercive practices aren't like YOUR coercive practices."
Many people are aware that on Wednesday, August 4, Intel Corporation "settled" the case brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission. What does a settlement mean here?
It means that Intel Corporation knew it would lose, and agreed to nearly all of the FTC's terms, but can now deny breaking the law and maintain the official position that the FTC's complaints are all false. It's akin to pleading 'no contest' rather than 'guilty' in a court of law.
What were the FTC's allegations? The answer would fill hundreds of pages, and in fact does. But a very brief version from The Washington Post:
"The agency investigated Intel's practices going back at least 10 years and found the company 'stepped well over the line.' The FTC said Intel told customers it would not sell products to them unless they agreed to stop doing business with Intel's rivals. The agency also said Intel redesigned its central processing units, or CPUs, to throw off competitors by making it harder for their chips to work with Intel's."
Sadly, in technology, monopoly abuses means essential consumer products are kept much more expensive and unnecessarily so -- a fact that widens the digital divide and keeps vital tools out of reach of billions. The only winners are the shareholders of Intel Corporation, who enjoy profits artificially inflated by rents. In addition, Intel Corporation has retarded innovation through its disregard for legal market practices.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Overdue Update
We have been silent here for a while, and it is now time for an overdue update.
The reason we stopped publishing the blow-by-blow is because on July 13, we had a court-ordered mediation with Intel Corporation. It is always best to approach these matters with clear eyes in good faith, and so we wanted to static as low as possible.
Time to turn the volume back up. Mediation failed. We did not accept any settlement.
The case will move forward now, as Judge Charles Breyer has elected to give Intel Corporation its day in court, and so many months still lie ahead.
Intel Corporation has made it clear that they despise this blog. They think it improper, indecorous, outside the bounds of civilized courtroom battles.
But the fact is that Intel Corporation wields disproportionate advantage on the legal terrain. Its pockets are bottomless. Its legal army is the largest and most battle-hardened on the planet, at least in the private sector. It "polices its brand" like the Gestapo policed Germany.
So this blog is a vital tool in our effort to win justice for our cause and also to prevent Intel Corporation from obliterating small private individuals in its zeal to enhance its balance sheet. Sure, intellectual property protection, but the 'shoot-first-ask-questions-later' doctrine is vile and impermissible in a free and fair society.
This blog not only has the mission of shedding light on the process and providing guidance for others that may be facing a legal harassment campaign by Intel Corporation or any other large entity. It also has the mission of raising money to finance the campaign.
Our lawyers are representing us pro bono and it is because they believe in our cause, in our eventual triumph, and in the basic tenets of justice. Intel Corporation has told ANIP that it is "lucky" to have pro bono representation.
We are lucky to have Ron Coleman and Colby Spring on our side, of that there be no doubt. They are among the top lawyers in their field in the United States.
But it is not a matter of luck. It is our hard, tireless work to secure pro bono representation, to raise money to fund out-of-pocket legal expenses, and to publicize the affair via this blog that has enabled us to struggle against Goliath.
If you have read this far, please consider donating to this cause. You may donate via PayPal at donate@intelfortheintelligent.com or through the link at the right.
We are only using the money for necessary expenses, and much of the battle continues to be funded as much as possible by ANIP owner Jeffrey Wright, whose company was dragged under in part by Intel Corporation's legal abuses.
We pledge that we will use the money fairly and prudently, and that we will return any unused funds to donors when this case concludes.
So please, donate now; even an amount as small as $1 will be appreciated and wisely employed.
The reason we stopped publishing the blow-by-blow is because on July 13, we had a court-ordered mediation with Intel Corporation. It is always best to approach these matters with clear eyes in good faith, and so we wanted to static as low as possible.
Time to turn the volume back up. Mediation failed. We did not accept any settlement.
The case will move forward now, as Judge Charles Breyer has elected to give Intel Corporation its day in court, and so many months still lie ahead.
Intel Corporation has made it clear that they despise this blog. They think it improper, indecorous, outside the bounds of civilized courtroom battles.
But the fact is that Intel Corporation wields disproportionate advantage on the legal terrain. Its pockets are bottomless. Its legal army is the largest and most battle-hardened on the planet, at least in the private sector. It "polices its brand" like the Gestapo policed Germany.
So this blog is a vital tool in our effort to win justice for our cause and also to prevent Intel Corporation from obliterating small private individuals in its zeal to enhance its balance sheet. Sure, intellectual property protection, but the 'shoot-first-ask-questions-later' doctrine is vile and impermissible in a free and fair society.
This blog not only has the mission of shedding light on the process and providing guidance for others that may be facing a legal harassment campaign by Intel Corporation or any other large entity. It also has the mission of raising money to finance the campaign.
Our lawyers are representing us pro bono and it is because they believe in our cause, in our eventual triumph, and in the basic tenets of justice. Intel Corporation has told ANIP that it is "lucky" to have pro bono representation.
We are lucky to have Ron Coleman and Colby Spring on our side, of that there be no doubt. They are among the top lawyers in their field in the United States.
But it is not a matter of luck. It is our hard, tireless work to secure pro bono representation, to raise money to fund out-of-pocket legal expenses, and to publicize the affair via this blog that has enabled us to struggle against Goliath.
If you have read this far, please consider donating to this cause. You may donate via PayPal at donate@intelfortheintelligent.com or through the link at the right.
We are only using the money for necessary expenses, and much of the battle continues to be funded as much as possible by ANIP owner Jeffrey Wright, whose company was dragged under in part by Intel Corporation's legal abuses.
We pledge that we will use the money fairly and prudently, and that we will return any unused funds to donors when this case concludes.
So please, donate now; even an amount as small as $1 will be appreciated and wisely employed.
No Deal
On July 13, 2010, Jeffrey Wright, the owner of Americas News Intel Publishing LLC, traveled to San Francisco at his own expense to attend a court-ordered mediation with Intel Corporation and their lawyers.
The fact of this mediation is public record, but everything about it is confidential, according to the law.
Mr. Wright cannot, therefore, discuss whether or not Intel Corporation offered him a settlement payment. And if they were to have done so, he could not reveal just how large it was.
But there was no settlement agreement reached, no deal, no backing down. The matter will be decided in the courts.
Intel Corporation has vowed that "there will be no shelter" for Americas News Intel Publishing LLC. It has threatened to sue not only the company, but Mr. Wright personally, for damages, legal fees, and all the other avaricious relief it can obtain.
This a risk that Mr. Wright is clearly ready to assume. We invite you to stand with us!
The fact of this mediation is public record, but everything about it is confidential, according to the law.
Mr. Wright cannot, therefore, discuss whether or not Intel Corporation offered him a settlement payment. And if they were to have done so, he could not reveal just how large it was.
But there was no settlement agreement reached, no deal, no backing down. The matter will be decided in the courts.
Intel Corporation has vowed that "there will be no shelter" for Americas News Intel Publishing LLC. It has threatened to sue not only the company, but Mr. Wright personally, for damages, legal fees, and all the other avaricious relief it can obtain.
This a risk that Mr. Wright is clearly ready to assume. We invite you to stand with us!
Judge Declines To Dismiss
On July 12, 2010, the Honorable US Federal Judge Charles Breyer issued an order denying our motion to dismiss the 8-count complaint that Intel Corporation has lodged against our company.
This is, obviously, unfortunate news. It cannot alter the outcome and our ultimate, inescapable triumph. But it means that more time, more funds, more grating Intel verbiage, and more taxpayer resources will be spilled down the drain before it is all over.
In the first hearing, readers recall, Breyer did indeed dismiss all charges except for the cybersquatting charge, which is the most disingenuous of the complaints, and which only survived because our lawyers had not specifically addressed it in our first motion to dismiss.
A complete reversal now of his earlier position simply means that the trial will plod forward. But there is ample room for optimism within Breyer's order.
The text of the decision essentially says: Intel Corporation, your facts are porous and nescient, but you have piled on such a mountain of them that this court find itself in the tedious position of having to give you an audience.
To wit: "In this case, there is some force to ANIP's assertion that it is using the term 'itel' in connection with its generic meaning....Thus, ANIP's use of the term of 'intel' appears to be consistent with the term's common meaning...(defining 'intel' as 'information, news'). Despite the potential strength of ANIP's argument, the Court finds that dismissing Intel's Complaint on this ground would be premature."
And later: "Arguing to the contrary, ANIP maintains, in a repeat of a previous argument, that Intel's dilution claim fails because ANIP is using the term 'intel' in its generic sense. If ANIP's assertion is true, then Intel's dilution claim, like its infringement claim, is not cognizable."
So, Judge Breyer seems to be saying that if we can prove Americas News Intel Publishing and its latinintel.com website are in the intelligence business, offering news analysis and information, then Intel's infringement and dilution claims are patently bogus. The intelligence business is not that arcane, and it is pretty darn easy to see that ANIP and latinintel.com and Mexico Watch have been for years engaged in the very specialized but very straightforward business. This test resoundingly passes the 'moron in a hurry' test. Intel Corporation is wrong.
Indeed, everyone already knows this, including Intel Corporation, but legally the common understanding of this fact has not been codified or proven, so we all most go through the motions in order to put an end to Intel Corporation's multiple frivolous campaigns in this vein.
It bears consideration that dismissing a complaint is rather extraordinary. It means that the court deems the complaint to be so obviously lacking of merit, so flimsy and unfounded, that it is not even entitled to its day in court. The fact that the complaints were dismissed in the first hearing reflects just how vapid Intel Corporation's grievance is in terms of legal relevance.
Granting a hearing to the Plaintiff is almost a pro forma nod toward their civic rights. Rant incoherently, and you are just another madman upon a soapbox in the plaza. Furbish your rants with expert legal counsel, and a public magistrate will be compelled to sit and endure them.
This is, obviously, unfortunate news. It cannot alter the outcome and our ultimate, inescapable triumph. But it means that more time, more funds, more grating Intel verbiage, and more taxpayer resources will be spilled down the drain before it is all over.
In the first hearing, readers recall, Breyer did indeed dismiss all charges except for the cybersquatting charge, which is the most disingenuous of the complaints, and which only survived because our lawyers had not specifically addressed it in our first motion to dismiss.
A complete reversal now of his earlier position simply means that the trial will plod forward. But there is ample room for optimism within Breyer's order.
The text of the decision essentially says: Intel Corporation, your facts are porous and nescient, but you have piled on such a mountain of them that this court find itself in the tedious position of having to give you an audience.
To wit: "In this case, there is some force to ANIP's assertion that it is using the term 'itel' in connection with its generic meaning....Thus, ANIP's use of the term of 'intel' appears to be consistent with the term's common meaning...(defining 'intel' as 'information, news'). Despite the potential strength of ANIP's argument, the Court finds that dismissing Intel's Complaint on this ground would be premature."
And later: "Arguing to the contrary, ANIP maintains, in a repeat of a previous argument, that Intel's dilution claim fails because ANIP is using the term 'intel' in its generic sense. If ANIP's assertion is true, then Intel's dilution claim, like its infringement claim, is not cognizable."
So, Judge Breyer seems to be saying that if we can prove Americas News Intel Publishing and its latinintel.com website are in the intelligence business, offering news analysis and information, then Intel's infringement and dilution claims are patently bogus. The intelligence business is not that arcane, and it is pretty darn easy to see that ANIP and latinintel.com and Mexico Watch have been for years engaged in the very specialized but very straightforward business. This test resoundingly passes the 'moron in a hurry' test. Intel Corporation is wrong.
Indeed, everyone already knows this, including Intel Corporation, but legally the common understanding of this fact has not been codified or proven, so we all most go through the motions in order to put an end to Intel Corporation's multiple frivolous campaigns in this vein.
It bears consideration that dismissing a complaint is rather extraordinary. It means that the court deems the complaint to be so obviously lacking of merit, so flimsy and unfounded, that it is not even entitled to its day in court. The fact that the complaints were dismissed in the first hearing reflects just how vapid Intel Corporation's grievance is in terms of legal relevance.
Granting a hearing to the Plaintiff is almost a pro forma nod toward their civic rights. Rant incoherently, and you are just another madman upon a soapbox in the plaza. Furbish your rants with expert legal counsel, and a public magistrate will be compelled to sit and endure them.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Intel Corporation Condemns Your Grassroots Donations
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!
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!
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.
Monday, May 17, 2010
A Shred Of Intel... Corp.
The dynamic duo of Ronald Coleman and Colby Springer have produced a powerful, compelling legal argument for our second motion to dismiss Intel Corporation's now-infamous trademark and cybersquatting complaints against us.
http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=5760
http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=5760
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Flying Lawyers UPDATED
In the previous post, we examined this claim from the Plaintiff:
"Intel made numerous attempts to resolve the dispute amicably, including its offer to fly and meet with Defendant’s counsel in person to try to resolve the dispute, which Defendant rejected. Defendant’s infringing use of the AMERICAS NEWS INTEL PUBLISHING trade name and LATIN INTEL and LATIN INTEL TRADE CENTER trademarks persists, leaving Intel no choice but to pursue its claims."
What a crock. On the contrary, we initially tried to work out a compromise, and only out of goodwill and pity toward these belligerent jerks that had ignorantly selected an English-language word as their trademark and realized in hindsight the folly of their choice.
In July 2007, Intel Corporation started harassing us. In June 2008, we said LEAVE US ALONE.
When they refused to leave us alone, we set forth a very clear condition: Send us a clear good-faith offer in writing, and we will resume talks. Until then, confine your pestering to the snack room near the elevator. Read an excerpt:
"Thank you for your letter of June 23, 2008. I understand that you wish to resume negotiations by telephone for the sake of efficiency and you have expressed concern that we are declining this invitation. To address that concern, allow me to explain.
Intel has failed to engage in these negotiations with an earnest desire to reach a settlement, but rather is seeking to compel my client’s capitulation through a prolonged campaign of attrition. We have provided detailed estimates of the business costs and risks implied in changing the trade and domain names. These efforts have been met with summary dismissals.
After nearly one year of glacial progress, we view this process as harassment rather than a good-faith effort to reach an amicable settlement, and we fail to see how the goals of efficiency and expediency will be served by yet another phone call.
...
My client will not accept an unreasonable amount to settle this matter, and is not disposed to squander additional time and money on purposeless and desultory discussions. We are perfectly willing to resume and conclude this settlement process, which is why we have requested that Intel submit a good-faith offer in writing. Until we have a clear indication that your client intends to collaborate with us on reaching a mutually agreeable settlement, there is nothing further to discuss."
Of course, we have since learned that Intel Corporation and its legal toughs routinely and methodically use C&D harassment to force small businesses into capitulation.
This is not irrational behavior. Rather than painstakingly sift through the universe of people and companies that have any kind of overlap with what Intel Corporation believes to be its intellectual domain (which includes golf balls, newsletters, computer chips, refrigerator magnets and more), the company's lawyers simply blast away with a shotgun.
There will be some collateral killings of innocents, but that is an acceptable risk in the business of trademark war.
But war is not risk-free.
Sooner or later, one of these small business had to fight back. And then the harm served by the scattergun approach would accrue against Intel Corporation. And so one has, and so the injuriousness will be visited upon the dealer.
There is one very large and important difference between geopolitical and trademark war. At the end of the day, Intel Corporation is bound by the sanctity of the courts. The very system that its legal department has learned to exploit and abuse also serves as the full stop for its rogue behavior.
"Intel made numerous attempts to resolve the dispute amicably, including its offer to fly and meet with Defendant’s counsel in person to try to resolve the dispute, which Defendant rejected. Defendant’s infringing use of the AMERICAS NEWS INTEL PUBLISHING trade name and LATIN INTEL and LATIN INTEL TRADE CENTER trademarks persists, leaving Intel no choice but to pursue its claims."
What a crock. On the contrary, we initially tried to work out a compromise, and only out of goodwill and pity toward these belligerent jerks that had ignorantly selected an English-language word as their trademark and realized in hindsight the folly of their choice.
In July 2007, Intel Corporation started harassing us. In June 2008, we said LEAVE US ALONE.
When they refused to leave us alone, we set forth a very clear condition: Send us a clear good-faith offer in writing, and we will resume talks. Until then, confine your pestering to the snack room near the elevator. Read an excerpt:
"Thank you for your letter of June 23, 2008. I understand that you wish to resume negotiations by telephone for the sake of efficiency and you have expressed concern that we are declining this invitation. To address that concern, allow me to explain.
Intel has failed to engage in these negotiations with an earnest desire to reach a settlement, but rather is seeking to compel my client’s capitulation through a prolonged campaign of attrition. We have provided detailed estimates of the business costs and risks implied in changing the trade and domain names. These efforts have been met with summary dismissals.
After nearly one year of glacial progress, we view this process as harassment rather than a good-faith effort to reach an amicable settlement, and we fail to see how the goals of efficiency and expediency will be served by yet another phone call.
...
My client will not accept an unreasonable amount to settle this matter, and is not disposed to squander additional time and money on purposeless and desultory discussions. We are perfectly willing to resume and conclude this settlement process, which is why we have requested that Intel submit a good-faith offer in writing. Until we have a clear indication that your client intends to collaborate with us on reaching a mutually agreeable settlement, there is nothing further to discuss."
Of course, we have since learned that Intel Corporation and its legal toughs routinely and methodically use C&D harassment to force small businesses into capitulation.
This is not irrational behavior. Rather than painstakingly sift through the universe of people and companies that have any kind of overlap with what Intel Corporation believes to be its intellectual domain (which includes golf balls, newsletters, computer chips, refrigerator magnets and more), the company's lawyers simply blast away with a shotgun.
There will be some collateral killings of innocents, but that is an acceptable risk in the business of trademark war.
But war is not risk-free.
Sooner or later, one of these small business had to fight back. And then the harm served by the scattergun approach would accrue against Intel Corporation. And so one has, and so the injuriousness will be visited upon the dealer.
There is one very large and important difference between geopolitical and trademark war. At the end of the day, Intel Corporation is bound by the sanctity of the courts. The very system that its legal department has learned to exploit and abuse also serves as the full stop for its rogue behavior.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
More Lies From The Plaintiff
Intel Corporation has filed its amended complaint in the federal courts after the Honorable Charles R. Breyer threw out the original frivolous complaints on trademark infringement.
This is how he explained his decision to the hapless plaintiffs:
"It really is lacking in enough specificity which would demonstrate that there was confusion or that you're even addressing the same markets. I mean, my understanding is that there may be no customer overlap at all in connection with this."
So they amended. And the amended complaint is stuffed with even more frivolity than the first, something likely to annoy Judge Breyer.
What do we mean? For example, the company tries to assert there is customer overlap through the following:
"Intel offers newsletters focusing on technology and business forecasting under its INTEL family of trademarks ... The intended audience for such publications includes individuals in the U.S. who are interested in technological business developments, trends and forecasts, both domestic and abroad."
Really? A newsletter publisher? The company is really going to assert that it competes with Mexico Watch Intelligence Service newsletters? I mean, that's just insulting.
Not to the judge -- though come to think of it, the Hon. Charles Breyer may feel this assertion insults his intelligence -- but rather it is an insult to our newsletters! Mexico Watch would never permit the shoddy handling of facts that Intel Corporation does. We've never seen their newsletters, nor do we know how much they cost to subscribe to, but to this budding Intel Corporation newsletter division we say: Don't quit your day job.
Speaking of facts, let's take a look at this amended complaint.
Yikes! Did you read all of that? Unless you are a trained lawyer, let's hope not. You would require advanced tedium therapy for years to come.
In this amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges:
"Intel made numerous attempts to resolve the dispute amicably, including its offer to fly and meet with Defendant’s counsel in person to try to resolve the dispute, which Defendant rejected."
You probably didn't know lawyers could fly. But this one can. Prior to joining Howrey, James Cady used to be the global trademark enforcer for Red Bull. So he's got wings.
But even though we knew this at the time, little notion had we that Cady had offered to fly out to meet with us. That's because he never said that. He said he would be in Washington DC and could swing by our lawyer's office for some face time.
So friendly! "I brought you a cigar and an energy drink. Want me to barnstorm you around the Washington Monument?"
What actually happened was the following: Howrey, which had initially started sending us Cease and Desist threats in July 2007, conducted a bizarre, stop-and-go, disingenuous harassment campaign for month after month. We've documented and posted the haphazard communications and inflexible positions that this campaign involved. After more than a year of their erratic badgering, during which time we were passed around among different Howrey lawyers, we said: "Enough."
In fact, we explicitly informed them that their repetitive, fickle, and bad faith settlement offers were not welcome. We also expressly accused Howrey of conducting a war of attrition, seeking to grind our resources down with chicanery and bluff. Intel Corporation and Howrey, at a jointly chaired seminar on trademark infringement, OPENLY declared that waiting out small companies while they collapse into bankruptcy IS PART OF THEIR LEGAL STRATEGY!!!
To paraphrase, we said: "Your communications are unhelpful and burdensome. If you have anything further to discuss, put a clear offer in writing. Until then, do not contact us."
Easy enough instructions to follow, right?
Immediately, the phone range. Crinkling aluminum cans of energy drink chirped in the background. It was the Howrey guy. Cady wanted to talk.
We firmly reiterated our instructions. Clear offer in writing first. Resumption of talks second. A very lucid directive from us. Easy. It was then that the Calfornia-based lawyer suggested a personal meeting while he was in Washington DC. Not so easy? Not when you're hopped up on energy drinks. But he wasn't, right? So what gives?
If we had any reason to regard Howrey's tactics as underhanded, and, quite frankly, we do, we would conjecture that this offer was simply another way to log billable hours to meet a quota.
But that's ancient history. What's new in this case is that Intel Corporation and the Harvey Siskind law firm that represents the California-based technology maker in this case are misconstruing the facts in a legal complaint before a federal judge. Some would say that's naughty.
The fact is that Intel Corporation, via its Howrey counsel, made numerous demands that we accept their terms to cease and desist. The terms they presented us were insulting, unrealistic, and absurd, and we told them exactly that using exactly those words at the time.
When we asked them to discontinue their harassment, they did not. They stepped it up. Now they seek to paint us as intransigent? Unfortunately for them, we have the paper trail.
This is how he explained his decision to the hapless plaintiffs:
"It really is lacking in enough specificity which would demonstrate that there was confusion or that you're even addressing the same markets. I mean, my understanding is that there may be no customer overlap at all in connection with this."
So they amended. And the amended complaint is stuffed with even more frivolity than the first, something likely to annoy Judge Breyer.
What do we mean? For example, the company tries to assert there is customer overlap through the following:
"Intel offers newsletters focusing on technology and business forecasting under its INTEL family of trademarks ... The intended audience for such publications includes individuals in the U.S. who are interested in technological business developments, trends and forecasts, both domestic and abroad."
Really? A newsletter publisher? The company is really going to assert that it competes with Mexico Watch Intelligence Service newsletters? I mean, that's just insulting.
Not to the judge -- though come to think of it, the Hon. Charles Breyer may feel this assertion insults his intelligence -- but rather it is an insult to our newsletters! Mexico Watch would never permit the shoddy handling of facts that Intel Corporation does. We've never seen their newsletters, nor do we know how much they cost to subscribe to, but to this budding Intel Corporation newsletter division we say: Don't quit your day job.
Speaking of facts, let's take a look at this amended complaint.
Yikes! Did you read all of that? Unless you are a trained lawyer, let's hope not. You would require advanced tedium therapy for years to come.
In this amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges:
"Intel made numerous attempts to resolve the dispute amicably, including its offer to fly and meet with Defendant’s counsel in person to try to resolve the dispute, which Defendant rejected."
You probably didn't know lawyers could fly. But this one can. Prior to joining Howrey, James Cady used to be the global trademark enforcer for Red Bull. So he's got wings.
But even though we knew this at the time, little notion had we that Cady had offered to fly out to meet with us. That's because he never said that. He said he would be in Washington DC and could swing by our lawyer's office for some face time.
So friendly! "I brought you a cigar and an energy drink. Want me to barnstorm you around the Washington Monument?"
What actually happened was the following: Howrey, which had initially started sending us Cease and Desist threats in July 2007, conducted a bizarre, stop-and-go, disingenuous harassment campaign for month after month. We've documented and posted the haphazard communications and inflexible positions that this campaign involved. After more than a year of their erratic badgering, during which time we were passed around among different Howrey lawyers, we said: "Enough."
In fact, we explicitly informed them that their repetitive, fickle, and bad faith settlement offers were not welcome. We also expressly accused Howrey of conducting a war of attrition, seeking to grind our resources down with chicanery and bluff. Intel Corporation and Howrey, at a jointly chaired seminar on trademark infringement, OPENLY declared that waiting out small companies while they collapse into bankruptcy IS PART OF THEIR LEGAL STRATEGY!!!
To paraphrase, we said: "Your communications are unhelpful and burdensome. If you have anything further to discuss, put a clear offer in writing. Until then, do not contact us."
Easy enough instructions to follow, right?
Immediately, the phone range. Crinkling aluminum cans of energy drink chirped in the background. It was the Howrey guy. Cady wanted to talk.
We firmly reiterated our instructions. Clear offer in writing first. Resumption of talks second. A very lucid directive from us. Easy. It was then that the Calfornia-based lawyer suggested a personal meeting while he was in Washington DC. Not so easy? Not when you're hopped up on energy drinks. But he wasn't, right? So what gives?
If we had any reason to regard Howrey's tactics as underhanded, and, quite frankly, we do, we would conjecture that this offer was simply another way to log billable hours to meet a quota.
But that's ancient history. What's new in this case is that Intel Corporation and the Harvey Siskind law firm that represents the California-based technology maker in this case are misconstruing the facts in a legal complaint before a federal judge. Some would say that's naughty.
The fact is that Intel Corporation, via its Howrey counsel, made numerous demands that we accept their terms to cease and desist. The terms they presented us were insulting, unrealistic, and absurd, and we told them exactly that using exactly those words at the time.
When we asked them to discontinue their harassment, they did not. They stepped it up. Now they seek to paint us as intransigent? Unfortunately for them, we have the paper trail.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Props To Our Lawyers
It's time to heap praise upon the legal team that quashed Intel Corp.'s initial efforts in the Northern California Federal Court District to sue our tiny company on groundless, trumped up charges.
It is highly likely that Intel Corp. representatives at Harvey Siskind amend the legal complaint and throw it at us again. They have payments to make on their luxury cars, after all. Billable hours are billable hours. And at their prices, so much the more.
But in the meantime, a huge hurrah for the stellar, noble, pro bono work by our team. Both of the brilliant lawyers described in the bios below already enjoy enough national fame for their work in their fields. They hardly need to worry about defending a small company against the massive legal resources of the Intel Corporation legal department. Why do they? Simply put, they are two fine men with deep convictions and just sensibilities.
A grand, heartfelt thank you to both. It is a pleasure to work with them for their senses of humor, stunning insights, and amazing grasp of strategy.
Lead Counsel
Ron Coleman
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York & New Jersey
Author of one of the top American legal blogs, http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com
Ron Coleman is a commercial litigator and business attorney whose work focuses on copyright and trademark infringement claims involving the Internet--including advising clients how to avoid them. He is an expert on First Amendment and intellectual property rights, especially pertaining to the Internet. Coleman, general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association, has published numerous articles about intellectual property rights and the Internet; in fact, the first piece published on this topic by the American Bar Association Journal was written by Coleman in 1995.
His scholarship may be viewed here: http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/ronald-d-coleman-1482337#publications
Local Counsel
Colby Springer
Carr & Ferrell, Palo Alto
Colby Springer has represented more companies than we can mention here, but a brief sample includes Sony Computer Entertainment; network security provider SonicWALL, Inc.; Ruckus Wireless, a leading supplier of wireless solutions; ZONARE Medical Systems, Inc. (makers of the world's first convertible ultrasound system); and engineering and research development firm Pax Scientific.
He is barred, of course, to practice in California State(a requirement for local counsel in the Northern California District), but he has also been admitted to numerous other federal district courts, the US Court of International Trade, the Federal Appeals Circuit, and the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Spring is a partner in the Intellectual Property and Litigation Practice Groups of Carr & Ferrell. Mr. Springer has experience in all fields of intellectual property law, advising clientele at every level of business development—from start ups to public companies. Mr. Springer counsels clients on acquisition and protection of intellectual property portfolios, specifically with regard to patents and copyrights. Mr. Springer has also represented a number of companies in patent, trade secret, copyright and antitrust suits. Additionally, Mr. Springer has provided counsel to various clients on interference and re-examination proceedings pending before the United States Patent Office.
Mr. Springer has published numerous articles on intellectual property law including the Section 271 Safeharbor and the Experimental Use Exception; trademark dilution; the intersection of copyright and trademark law as it pertains to false designations of origin; the interplay of the antitrust and intellectual property laws; collective publishing rights; the public domain; domain name litigation and UDRP cybersquatting proceedings. Mr. Springer is also a contributing author to the “Matthew Bender Practice Guide” for California Unfair Competition and Business Torts. In addition, Mr. Springer has given presentations on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
It is highly likely that Intel Corp. representatives at Harvey Siskind amend the legal complaint and throw it at us again. They have payments to make on their luxury cars, after all. Billable hours are billable hours. And at their prices, so much the more.
But in the meantime, a huge hurrah for the stellar, noble, pro bono work by our team. Both of the brilliant lawyers described in the bios below already enjoy enough national fame for their work in their fields. They hardly need to worry about defending a small company against the massive legal resources of the Intel Corporation legal department. Why do they? Simply put, they are two fine men with deep convictions and just sensibilities.
A grand, heartfelt thank you to both. It is a pleasure to work with them for their senses of humor, stunning insights, and amazing grasp of strategy.
Lead Counsel
Ron Coleman
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York & New Jersey
Author of one of the top American legal blogs, http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com
Ron Coleman is a commercial litigator and business attorney whose work focuses on copyright and trademark infringement claims involving the Internet--including advising clients how to avoid them. He is an expert on First Amendment and intellectual property rights, especially pertaining to the Internet. Coleman, general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association, has published numerous articles about intellectual property rights and the Internet; in fact, the first piece published on this topic by the American Bar Association Journal was written by Coleman in 1995.
His scholarship may be viewed here: http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/ronald-d-coleman-1482337#publications
Local Counsel
Colby Springer
Carr & Ferrell, Palo Alto
Colby Springer has represented more companies than we can mention here, but a brief sample includes Sony Computer Entertainment; network security provider SonicWALL, Inc.; Ruckus Wireless, a leading supplier of wireless solutions; ZONARE Medical Systems, Inc. (makers of the world's first convertible ultrasound system); and engineering and research development firm Pax Scientific.
He is barred, of course, to practice in California State(a requirement for local counsel in the Northern California District), but he has also been admitted to numerous other federal district courts, the US Court of International Trade, the Federal Appeals Circuit, and the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Spring is a partner in the Intellectual Property and Litigation Practice Groups of Carr & Ferrell. Mr. Springer has experience in all fields of intellectual property law, advising clientele at every level of business development—from start ups to public companies. Mr. Springer counsels clients on acquisition and protection of intellectual property portfolios, specifically with regard to patents and copyrights. Mr. Springer has also represented a number of companies in patent, trade secret, copyright and antitrust suits. Additionally, Mr. Springer has provided counsel to various clients on interference and re-examination proceedings pending before the United States Patent Office.
Mr. Springer has published numerous articles on intellectual property law including the Section 271 Safeharbor and the Experimental Use Exception; trademark dilution; the intersection of copyright and trademark law as it pertains to false designations of origin; the interplay of the antitrust and intellectual property laws; collective publishing rights; the public domain; domain name litigation and UDRP cybersquatting proceedings. Mr. Springer is also a contributing author to the “Matthew Bender Practice Guide” for California Unfair Competition and Business Torts. In addition, Mr. Springer has given presentations on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Judge Tosses Out Frivolous Intel Corp. Suit!!!
On April 2, our counsel argued our Motion To Dismiss Against Intel Corporation's now infamous frivolous lawsuit against Americas News Intel Publishing Corp.
This from our attorney's mobile device as he left the courthouse:
"Causes of action 1-7 dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 8 was denied but only because we didn't address it. 30 days to file an amended pleading. They also are going to request a different mediator because the current one has no real trademark law experience. I told them that was fine. Boom goes the dynamite."
In short, WE WIN!
At least this round. Intel Corporation's attorneys at Harvey Siskind had asked the Honorable Judge Charles Breyer to grant a leave to amend if our motion to dismiss was successful. Since Breyer did toss out essentially the entire case (Action 8 is an almost laughable complaint that we were "cybersquatting" an Intel domain property), plaintiff will have the option of amending and refiling.
Intel Corp. and its lawyers probably will. It's Intel Corp. They've got the deepest pockets imaginable for frivolous litigation. They can drag this out, so they probably will.
BUT THIS VICTORY IS HUGE!
It essentially nullifies the entire grounds for Intel Corp.'s whining legal complaints. We told Intel Corp. they were baseless. Now a federal district judge has, too.
So stay tuned. One way or the other, we'll know what happens next within 30 days.
This from our attorney's mobile device as he left the courthouse:
"Causes of action 1-7 dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 8 was denied but only because we didn't address it. 30 days to file an amended pleading. They also are going to request a different mediator because the current one has no real trademark law experience. I told them that was fine. Boom goes the dynamite."
In short, WE WIN!
At least this round. Intel Corporation's attorneys at Harvey Siskind had asked the Honorable Judge Charles Breyer to grant a leave to amend if our motion to dismiss was successful. Since Breyer did toss out essentially the entire case (Action 8 is an almost laughable complaint that we were "cybersquatting" an Intel domain property), plaintiff will have the option of amending and refiling.
Intel Corp. and its lawyers probably will. It's Intel Corp. They've got the deepest pockets imaginable for frivolous litigation. They can drag this out, so they probably will.
BUT THIS VICTORY IS HUGE!
It essentially nullifies the entire grounds for Intel Corp.'s whining legal complaints. We told Intel Corp. they were baseless. Now a federal district judge has, too.
So stay tuned. One way or the other, we'll know what happens next within 30 days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
