Originally posted 2014-05-29 01:48:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

CIA Headquarters - intel inside
There’s intel inside.

BUMPED from January 1, 2010 and UPDATED due to decision (scroll to the bottom for the stunning conclusion):

Had you heard about this one from Mike Masnick?

Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having “intel” in their name somewhere — including a travel agency and a jeans company. Now, before anyone brings it up, yes, as a trademark holder the law requires you to enforce your trademark against infringement, lest it become considered “generic” (such as xerox machines, kleenex tissues, aspirin and other brand names that became generic).  But, the key in all of those generic situations was that the use was applied to things that directly competed with the original brand’s products. People referred to other tissues as “kleenex” and it stuck. Intel’s lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all.

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is LatinIntel.com. Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of “intel” as short for “intelligence.” It’s common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply “intel.” . . .

More importantly, no one is going to look at LatinIntel.com and confuse it for the world’s largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can’t order a Centrino processor. There’s simply no confusion at all. . . .

Well, when I first read that post, I thought Mike may just be on to something there. Here’s how I see it now:

UPDATE:  Intel loses (don’t get excited about the “decision” itself however!)

Yay us!

Glory and gratitude to my co-counsel Colby Springer who nailed it at oral argument.

MORE:  Is less.

By Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

4 thoughts on “Some intel on INTEL®”
  1. If I were a lawyer, I would have to recuse myself from leaving a comment. You see, I am the owner of the company currently being sued by Intel Corporation.

    Unable to find pro bono representation and unable to afford private counsel, I was preparing to go pro se against the Intel Litigation Army when I met Ron. I didn’t ask him to represent me pro bono. He offered as soon he learned the details of the case.

    That is to say, he offered despite knowing that the immense legal resources of Intel Corporation were being marshaled to skewer my company on eight federal, state, and common law charges. I’d say that took courage that can only be found in the integrity of someone who believes in the cause of justice under our laws.

    And ever since, he has been energetic, intelligent, and passionate about our defense. I am grateful.

    After other lawyers saw we had the backing of a well-known trademark and intellectual property attorney, offers of pro bono local counsel poured forth. We attracted the finest available to our cause, in the end.

    We filed our official response motion to Intel Corporation’s case on Dec. 31. A satisfying way to end a rough year. And reason for optimism in 2010!

Comments are closed.