decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The End to the Trademark Tale
Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 07:33 PM EST

You will remember SCO's attempt to trademark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. The USPTO denied the application, as you can see in their letter of final denial [PDF] dated September 12, 2005. They had six months to respond to the letter, and if they failed, that would usually be the end of the process.

That deadline came and went on March 13, 2006. According to the USPTO website, SCO did not file any response. What normally happens next? The application would be marked "Abandoned."

Technically, they can appeal, but that seems unlikely. Why do I say it's unlikely? Because if you read the letter they received telling them what they'd need to do to change the USPTO's mind, you will notice on page 4, they were told they'd need to be able to say either of these two things:

If appropriate, one of the following is an acceptable statement to establish a legal relationship and unity of control over the marks, if accurate:
“The SCO Group, Inc. is the sole owner of Caldera International, Inc. and X/Open Co. Ltd. and thus controls the activities and operations, including the selection, adoption and use of the trademarks and service marks.”

OR

“The SCO Group, Inc. is owner of substantially all of the stock of Caldera International, Inc. and X/Open Co. Ltd. and thus controls the activities and operations, including the selection, adoption and use of the trademarks and service mark.

As stated above, the applicant's explanation should generally be presented in an affidavit or with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. The following is a properly worded declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any resulting registration, declares that the facts set forth in this application are true; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

There were more items SCO would have needed to address, but how could they get past this part? They can't say they are the sole owner of X/Open. Not even SCO would go that far. Even if they tried, it wouldn't fly. So, that adventure is over. They could file an appeal, as I said, but normally they would have filed it when they filed their August 15 letter to the USPTO in which they claimed they deserved the mark, and there is no indication they have filed any appeal to date. To read the letter, go to http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow and type in 78438912 in the box marked "Number" and you will find all the documents.

The USPTO outlined for SCO what their response options were:

Response Options

If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond to this final action by:

(1) submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or

(2) filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a); TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).

In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2). 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a). See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matters. The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

The six months are over. They didn't do either. So this should be The End. Normally, anyway. Of course, SCO doesn't always do things exactly, precisely, like everyone else, now that I think of it, but normally this would be the end of the UNIX SYSTEMS LABORATORIES trademark tale, and I think it is.


  


The End to the Trademark Tale | 183 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 07:36 PM EST
...go here

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 07:38 PM EST
And try to remember to clickify any links, per the red instructions.

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UNIX...
Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 08:42 PM EST
... is properly tied to X/Open by the USPTO.

Soon, UNIX copyrights will be clarified also. Novell or AT&T, or both. No tSCOg involved there, except in their new IMHO.

---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

Borderline Personality Disorder
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 09:51 PM EST
As Corporations are have a legal existence similar to human beings, I wonder how far off it would be to diagnosis a personality disorder with Corporations. With an enduring a bit of dry humor, please continue reading. If you are not familiar with BPD, just do a Google, there's lots of resources on it. "Stop Walking on Eggshells" is a good book to read, especially for owners of SCO Stock.

The text below lists the criteria for BPD in the DSM IV manual. My interpretted responses are in italic.

Enjoy,

Borderline Personality Disorder DSM IV Criteria

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:


1.frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

“My UNIX is BETTER than LINUX! Why don't you LOVE me?”


2.a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation

“Monterey is the Greatest Partnership Project in the WORLD! --Opps.”

3.identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.

“I own UNIX SYSTEMS LABORATORY trademark!”

4.impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating). Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

With regards to spending: “My legal expenses are reasonable, especially compared to my corporate earnings.”
and with regards to substance abuse: “I need more source code!”

5.recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior

“We're going to WIN this lawsuit at all costs!”

6.affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).

“We're REALLY going to WIN this lawsuit at all costs!”

7.chronic feelings of emptiness

“Why doesn't any one like my UNIX?”

8.inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

“I would have gotten away with it, too, if it were not for those meddling Linux zealot KIDS!”

9.transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

“We're WINNING, just read our Press Releases!”

The DSM IV goes on to say:

The essential feature of Borderline Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity that begins by early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts.


Corporate Entities are not excluded from this definition and
corporate cognitive disassociation appears to be very prevalant in this patient.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Boies must be getting tired of paying
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, March 29 2006 @ 09:55 PM EST
For stupid pointless legal claims. Poor man when his karma catches up with him,
which seems to be happening.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not Quite the End to the Trademark Tale
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, March 30 2006 @ 04:31 AM EST
Don't forget that the SCOundrels also applied for the trademark "USL".
The number for that one is 78459875.

The USPTO is likewise waiting for SCO to respond, and SCO are currently
pondering this, among other things:

'Applicant must specify whether the letters “USL” have any significance in the
applicant’s trade or industry or as applied to the goods/services described in
the application.'

The letter from USPTO was dated 01-Dec-2005, so SCO still have some time to
dream up something...

---
SCO: hunting for snarks in an ocean of sharks
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"punishable by fine or imprisonment"
Authored by: bigbert on Thursday, March 30 2006 @ 04:41 AM EST
Sorry PJ, but I am awaiting that Happy Day.....
You are a nice person, probably too nice, but oh, what a Happy Day it would be.

---
4c 69 6e 75 78 20 52 75 6c 65 73 21

[ Reply to This | # ]

Troubling -- The End to the Trademark Tale
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 30 2006 @ 12:02 PM EST
They mention Caldera and X Open. They don't mention Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Other Unix trademarks
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 30 2006 @ 02:34 PM EST
While SCO is shut out of the Unix trademark for computer software they could get it for something else... Dennis Ritchie's Other Unix Page

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds