Thanks to H we now have a banner. Feel free to use it.
Update: I have an idea: Canonrumors should start collecting donations. Once he gets enough to get himself a nice Nikon set, he should publicly destroy all his Canon equipment – with a hammer and broadcast it on the Internet. I would pay to see that!
Our friends at canonrumors.com got a letter from Canon USA legal department that they cannot legally use the name “Canon” in their domain name. I am not a lawyer, but this sounds ridiculous! After all, this blog was created to promote Canon products and serve the Canon community.
Some of you will say that this type of rumor sites provides classified information to the competition (that would be us). Non-sense! A leak about a camera one week before its official release does not provide any competitive advantage to anyone. All it does is free publicity and Internet buzz. Who can argue that this is bad for Canon?
I understand that the word Canon is a registered trademark, but the domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services (yes, I did take a law class in college):
If you want to say that ‘Gap sucks’ that’s your First Amendment right, and just because Gap has a registered trademark doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a right to stop people from saying ‘Gap sucks,’” Gross said. “You’re not violating the trademark because there is no consumer confusion if the consumer is well aware that it’s a criticism site.”
Like trademarks, a copyright does not grant authors or companies absolute ownership over their copyrighted materials. The concept of fair use allows the public to make limited uses of otherwise copyrighted works.
“Just because somebody has a copyright doesn’t mean that they can control every use of that material,” Gross said.
My guess is that someone at Canon is looking for a quick promotion and did not check with the marketing department before acting. My request is to any reader that has a website, blog, forum – write about it! Spread the word! This is not right!
To our international readers (and other people that may have forgotten it) – I just would like to explain the First Amendment of our constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Maybe we should create a small logo “keep canonrumors alive” and post it everywhere. Any good graphic designers?
And finally I would like to remind our readers what happened to Apple when they tried to shut down a rumor site:
After all – another reason to switch to Nikon.
Poll: do you think Canon USA is right:
Related posts:
65 Comments
The only thing that matters is whether “canonrumors.com” comprises a trademark infringement. The test is whether a reasonable person would be confused, which he wouldn’t.
Of course, if Canon decides to sue, it’s going to cost canonrumors.com to defend themselves.
I have no doubt that the legal department at Nikon are a bunch of bastards as well.
Sorry I hate Canon too much to wanna save canonrumors.com
But this is all bad publicity for Canon – don’t they get this?
lol
I have an idea:
Canon also means a gun! An artillery gun to be presice. How could they register the name Canon for their exclusive use? It is ridiculous!
Well, to be >precise< , a "cannon" (note spelling) is the gun.
Read up on trademarks and what constitutes infringement. There are limitations on what kinds of words and phrases and marks can be trademarked. Nonetheless, plenty of trademarked names consist of preexisting English words.
this is something i expect from Sony, not Canon. as for promoting canon, this is a 2 edged sword. on one hand sure they are promoting the canon name. but on the other hand they are making people hold off buying stuff; sometimes well in advance of a new model arriving cos of the rumours of new models. this could be costing canon sales of their soon-to-be-replaced models.
having said that, to sell all your canon gear cos of this, (as the admin said on his site.), ahh…why ?
on principal ? perhaps we should look at the manufacturing processes of all these meg-companies using the equivalent of slave labour in 3rd world asian companies to make meg dollars…just like Nike.
if your gonna stand up for principals, at least make it based on something infinately more important.
I do not have any information on 3rd world slave labor. If you have, I will be more than happy to publish it. Email me.
A’m sorry to misspell some english words. It is my 5th language. I’m trying to get better at it.
Never the less, Lawers sucks!!!
I’ve said it many times – I don’t care about spelling – all I care about is content. Often, I have to write posts on a cell phone and the spelling is the last thing on my mind – I just want to give the information to our readers asap.
Everybody want a lower price, and 3rd world people want to have a job. Job on Canon/Nikon factory is better paid then many others.
I am one of half percent that voted yes. Sorry to say is they are using there name. Just like “Nikon Rumors” is using nikons name.
In my “business view” what they are doing is right. There should be a Zero tolerance policy. Only down side is pr but people forget fast.
screw canon! They should turn canon rumors into a canon sucks site for that. What assholes! It is a huge amount of publicity and while it may stop people from buying a current product in hopes of a new, they cant dispute that there are a VERY limited number of people that are keeping up with rumors like this when you concider the world population and potential customers.
Canon, you SUCK for that one!
I respect your opinion, even if I don’t agree with it – this is freedom of speech!
…and one more thing – people will not forget if you continue to make a big deal out of it
I should all so point out all canonrumors has to do is change there webserver to somewhere in russia or china or some other country that doesn’t have copyright laws. Then there would be nothing they could do. Work for all the pirated software websites.
Yes, this is a possibility but one should not be afraid to write freely about rumors and go to other countries in order to do this. This is not what democracy is about.
I think those guys make a big mistake. As many others they underestimate the power and the infuence of such sites.
We should make this public… Any contact to a newspaper?
I hope, Nikon doesn’t make the same mistake…
Volkswagen has been successful for years, ‘ordering’ people to stop using VW or Volkswagen in their domain name. They own the name, and they have the right to defend how it’s used. If they don’t, they could actually loose their rights to the name!
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but something that companies can (and will) do.
Hopefully this only means that Canon will loose some its business. Welcome to Nikon camp folks…
The annoying thing about copyright and trademark laws is that if you never defend it, then you don’t own it. I believe that’s ultimately what this is about. That and someone justifying their job.
I just worry that Nikon will come after this site if Canon is successful. I sure hope they don’t! This place is fun.
Volkswagen don’t “own” the name. They have a trademark on the name, which allows them to sue people for infringement when the name is used under certain circumstances. BTW, trademarks are almost never declared generic. That’s lawyer FUD.
Note that I just used the word “Volkswagen” above, and they cannot and will not do anything about it. Context matters.
“Zero tolerance” for what? Non-infringement?
Not only do I think Canon would lose if their victims could afford to put up a defense, I think they SHOULD lose — and I’m surprised more people don’t agree. Trademarks serve a narrow purpose — to protect the public from fraud in commerce. NOT to serve the interests of any company. The system is imposed for the benefit of the buyer, not the seller, and nobody is being tricked into thinking that “canonrumors.com” speaks for the organization selling cameras down at the corner shop.
That said, don’t be surprised if Nikon does the same thing.
They could name their site Crumors .com and put word Canon in meta tags for search engines to find. It is not the problem to go around the f’ng lawers! It is about our rights and a freedom of speach. We should protect it form greedy corporations as much as from greedy politicians!
I think canon is definitely making a big mistake in doing this. I read both nikonrumors and canonrumors and I think they are great websites. Also I’d like to thank the admin here that posted this story, it was the right thing to do and it shows that even though we like to trash talk users of the other brand, we are still there for each other when we need to.
Personally , I don’t think Canon has a case here at all. Since the admin of canonrumors is not under a legally binding non-disclosure contract, he is allowed to post whatever he wants regarding Canon products. Canon will end up just wasting money pursuing this. A formal apology would be most apropriate in this situation.
Yep, nice such a first amendment. A century of lobbyist has turned that into a useless piece of paper. Thanks to, among others, the RIAA and the MPAA your country has the most unfair IP laws I’ve ever seen.
For a big corporation like Canon usa this move makes perfect sense. I’m actually surprised that nikon hasn’t done the same. The only clever thing to do is point them to the recent articles about not pissing off your fans that have appeard on techdirt and wired.
Another usage is canon meaning canonical. For example Buddhist canon. Or indeed Star Trek canon …
However the fact that its a word with multiple definitions is irrelevant to the current case. its clearly intended to be a reference to the Canon brand. This is only actionable if they are attempting to confuse customers into buying from them (eg if they were to sell crappy lenses that said ‘Canon’ on them, *that* would be actionable).
The location of the server is not necessarily relevant. But people often forget that the .com .org .net (and indeed .gov and .mil) top level domains are owned by the USA. They are not ‘international’. (There is also a .us country domain, just like .jp or .fr or .uk, but its rarely used). So arguably US law is applicable. But IANAL.
It would be interesting to read the actual order from Canon. If they are asking him to take it down without listing specific design details, etc… that are causing it to infringe on their logo, it is probably frivolous. If any part of the site is reminiscent of the actual canon site, then CanonRumors will probably have to address that. Canon was probably just hoping the realization of the first round of legal bills would cause CanonRumors to shutter the site.
SORRY, long post, but I think well explanatory:
————————————-
I always disaproved these kind of actions.
Specially when coming from Mega-companies that are already making millions. They Don’t really need to do this…
As someone said, it seems like someone in Canon (sorry, “Canon ©” …) is trying to get relevance in his/her job, or has nothing more important to do than “hunting” people talking about them.
BUT the Stupid (sorry,no offense) thing in this case, is that “canonrumors” Usually Gives people who LOVES Canon interesting information that will PROMOTE purchasing their products (thus, FREE advertising for Canon ©)!!
As NikonRumors ACTUALLY do for Nikon Owners (or Potentially owners)
For instance, I found this site when looking for new Nikon DSLRs details, and I found useful info that helps me to decide purchasing a Nikon camera…
The same happens to Canon (©).
It’s like having a Daily Newspaper specific for a Brand!! And it’s great
SO, UNLESS the site is used to degrade the Trademark/Copyright/Name, or confuse the consumer, or Traffic with industry REAL secrets, they SHOULD NOT take any action.
If they do, then they Act AGAINST their OWN INTERESTS.
THIS kind of things HAPPEN WHEN people/Companies EXTRALIMIT their rights to a non-sense level.
In my case, I don’t get married with ANY brand.
I have Canon and Nikon cameras, (different types though), and I love them. Thay both have GREAT features.
Similarly as with my 2 computers (Intel and AMD based, and wouldn’t reject a Mac if I really need it)
I HOPE such grat companies spend more efforts on making Cheaper and Better products, instead of such ridiculous actions.
FOR the Lawyer/department behind this: mr/mrs.: think about it again.
I’m a Canonite, but even I think this is a good idea.
Stupid Canon
Typo error: I should have post the previous message at the end of the thread, sorry.
Of course I will post about this.
BTW:
)
I want to Thank the Admin for this great website (I know it might be very stressing work too! Take Care man!
My post is above (I typed in the wrong placed)
Thanks
I think the laws in the US are just fine, it is their interpretation that’s wrong.
One of the suggestions I gave to canonrumors was to make it a religious site and start writing about the “other”canon. Then put a link on top to another domain name like crumors.
What is also interesting from legal perspective is what is a domain name and can it be protected by the same laws? For example: USA Today broke the silence about the D90 hours before it is officially announced – basically they reported a rumor! In USA Today! They also used the Nikon name in their article. How is this different than a web site?
Thank you – I get a lot of email saying the same thing. Don’t worry, I will not go down without a fight.
You have to think of it in another way. What if I started a website called “NikonBooks” I sold books about cameras under the same name. Would that be ok?
Now think about “NikonTips” I had a website that I listed tips about nikons cameras but i made money off the banners ads.
Now doesn’t this work the same as “Canonrumors” There is a large google ad at the top. This might only cover costs making zero profit but still the fact is your taking business away from “canon” that could if they wanted to make a website about there own rumors.
Please understand that I kind of care less about a large company like this. I do believe they will hurt themselves more than help by this access. But I do believe this action to be understandable.
If you want to see some fun legal threats check out
http://thepiratebay.org/legal
People there have balls. What i really love is the letters tell them to remove “so and so” and They CAN’T underlaw show or talk about it with anyone or risk being sued. I really wonder how many people this works on.
i’m not sure how to go back to older posts on the canonrumors site, but when he originally posted about it, he apparently was more or less using the Canon logo as the part of the logo for the site name. So, the original demand included that he stop using their logo, which he complied with (I never personally saw the old logo, this issue was what first got me visiting there in the first place). Now the only thing at issue, as far as I can tell, is the domain name itself and his use of it. They aren’t demanding he rescind ownership, merely that he not use it. Which is interesting…b/c iirc companies usually use the fact a domain name *isn’t* being actively used as basis for a cybersquatting claim with the domain registry.
The use of their logo is wrong – I agree with that.
Canon can’t win this legally, but money talks, and unfortunately, they can harass the site and force them to spend so much money on a defense that they can’t survive. What any such site should do is put a very visible disclaimer saying that “Blahblah is a trademark of the Blahblah corporation” and that “This site has no relationship to Blahblah”.
As for Apple, what do you mean, “look what happened to Apple”? What happened to Apple is that they paid the guy off to get the site shut down. But in Apple’s case, I believe they argued that the site was receiving proprietary information from Apple employees who were distributing it illegally. Obviously other Apple rumor sites still exist.
Apple wouldn’t settle out of court if they could win this case. This trial was considered as a “loss” for Apple (according to many online articles – just google it for more info), nevertheless the bad publicity.
A reasonable person *might* expect “NikonBooks” or “NikonTips” to be associated with Nikon.
But “CanonRumors?” The official rumor-spreading wing of a photo/electronics company?
I don’t think anybody is being confused, and I think it’s imperative that we maintain a very narrow definition of what constitutes infringement.
I have helped out with this by copying and pasting to my forum and putting a link there to this site.
Well, i’ve sorted out a banner.
It’s here:
If someone could give it some proper hosting, that’d be great.
The url for it is here:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23lie03&s=4
Thanks.
This is a meritless claim by Canon. They are likely to bring this to arbitration via ICANN’s UDRB & their claim should fail. There is a bona-fide use of the Canon (which is a trademark) and does not constitute either Trademark infringement or Trademark dilution.
Very cool! Posted already. Thanks.
When you write about freedom of speech, you mention “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Well, the freedom of speech only applies to the CONGRESS!
You should read wikipedia about freedom of speech… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
only to congress?
So my question is how can someone write a book about Nikon D90 let’s say – the book will be obviously called Nikon D90?Do they have to pay to Nikon in order to publish the book with that name? How is this different than an online blog?
Klaus – let’s not split hairs. By ‘own’, I meant ‘trademark’.
Volkswagen cannot keep you from using their name in a discussion. And I never said they could.
What I did say was that VW has defended it’s trademark by telling website owners that they couldn’t use ‘VW’ or ‘Volkswagen’ in the name of their website.
Despite what you (and many others think), a reasonable person *could* confuse a rumor site with a legit site. Just the fact that it could happen could be enough for a judge to side with the company.
A company *has* to defend it’s trademark. If they do not, a judge will rule that the trademark has fallen into public domain. Canon cannot afford to let that happen.
In all likelihood, Canon’s lawyers are doing this to defend their trademark, to show that they are doing their due diligence to protect their name. If Canon is truly okay with the site, then they will work out a deal to ‘license’ the name back to the site.
As to your comment ‘trademarks are almost never declared generic’ – that’s because lawyers defend trademarks to keep that from happening.
(Yes, me and quite a few other people I know were approached by VW and ‘asked’ to stop using their trademarked names in websites we participated in).
I am shocked that you cannot use the “C” brand name!
If this ridiculous behaviour is approved by the law, why not sue all article that talk about the “C” company.
Personally, i experienced funny stuff with the french branch, and do not work with them anymore ! plus i love Nikon, Leica and Hassleblad anyway !
Every mag, susceptible of speaking about the “C” company’s product should boycottit just for the freedom of speech !
Do a petition, i’ll be the first one to sign it !
Good luck to you !
Regards
XL
On the other site I think Nikon is benefiting from this site because of the free publicity and brand promotion. Just try to say that you like Canon on this blog and you will be squeezed.
It seems that you are criticizing only the week points in my post and you are probably right (I still think that the whole law system should be based on the constitution and they should be no law opposing the constitution, but I could be wrong) . You did not say anything about the fact that “Canon is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services”. How is this different if I right a book about “Canon DSLR”. Will Canon come after me for using their name? The website is providing a service and the only way to specify the details of this service is to use the Canon name. They are not selling anything with the Canon logo on it.
Why do you think that 95% of the readers are “boneheads”? 95%!!!
You wouldn’t be able to sell a book on the Canon DSLR, without Canon’s approval. First, why would Canon let you put money into your pocket (the sales of the book), without getting their cut of the book? Second, no publisher would touch it for that same reason.
Let’s face it – you have sponsors on this web site. That’s money in your pocket. That’s eyeballs looking at your web page BECAUSE of the name you have in your domain name. If you didn’t have Nikon in the name, I wouldn’t be here. If this was ‘digitalcamerarumors.com’, it might not be as popular as quickly.
You could be right, I wonder how Thom Hogan does it? When he rights his books, does he pay Nikon? I don’t think so. How about Ken Rockwell – he does not have a Nikon domain name, but he is making tons of money based on reviews on Nikon’s equipment and the name Nikon is all over his site? How are those 2 cases different?
I’m not familiar with Thom Hogan, but if the books he writes has Canon’s name on them, then he obtained permission to do so. And Canon is getting a cut of his profits. Why would Canon allow someone to sell books with their name on it, and not want a piece of the money?
As for Ken Rockwell – if his site is generic in name, and doesn’t use a product or company name, then he’s fine.
Really, the case is – are you standing on your own merits, or are you driving traffic to your site (or your book) because you’re piggybacking on someone else’s name? They worked hard to build a brand. Why should you benefit from their brand name, without letting them benefit as well?
I cannot say that I agree more that Canon is making a bonehead move by requiring canonrumors.com quit using the domain name. However, as a lawyer I must say that your First Amendment analysis is WAY off. Just read the text of the Amendment which you quote, it says “Congress shall make no law…” Our friend at canonrumors is not being shut down by the government (Congress), but by a private company (Canon). Indeed, the First Amendment provides no protection for freedom of speech in such a context. Anyway, I do wish canonrumors the best, and think that Canon is being totally unfair. Unfortunately, they do have the legal right to control the use of their trademarks…including the use of Canon in a domain name.
Your reading of Reno v. ACLU is not applicable. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress–i.e. the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Congress was attempting to restrict what could be said or expressed on the internet. This is not the case for canonrumors.com. You are correct that both cases invlove the internet, but that is the end of the similarity. Instead, in the present case, it is Canon (a private company) enforcing its trademarks against another private individual (canonrumors.com). Congress simply is not invloved in trying to control or restrict the speech of canonrumors.com.
Thank you for coming in here and making some sense. Everyone is quick to judge that this is a bonehead move, but ignore the fact that it’s a move they have to make – they have the right to control their trademark, and they need to defend it.