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:
64 Comments
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.