HMR group possibly stealing the Ubuntu Logo

[subdivision]

Have any actual lawyers chimed in on this yet?

[garwaymatt]

It's friday night/saturday morning. Nothing will happen until at least monday.

[Scruffynerf]

It's friday night/saturday morning. Nothing will happen until at least monday.

Tuesday at the latest

(I wonder if anyone here will get that reference?)

[Paqman]

shouldn't that apply to closed-source/proprietary software then? the majority here do not think so.

They can think it all they like, the reality is that there's plenty of proprietary software, and that's not going to change. There are some open source fans who think that ALL software should be open source, but i'd say those people are definitely a minority overall, and probably a minority here too.

Companies have a right to either go down the open source or proprietary route with their software. And we have a right to decide which we prefer. Anybody trying to say everybody should be forced into one camp or the other is just being a zealot IMO. Personally I try not to waste too much of my time on zealots. They're best left to froth to themselves on some quiet corner of the internet.

[AwesomeTux]

Digg it! http://digg.com/linux_unix/HMR_group...he_Ubuntu_Logo

[HappinessNow]

HMR Group seems to be two years older than Canonical. I wonder if HMR had this logo before Canonical did.

This was my first question that came to mind, which came first HMR or Canonical?

Aren't you all getting off topic

I think it is a copyright infringement, based on my experiences in this area. However, the main issue is whether or not HRM would play nice and change the logo just with an email. If not, then ubuntu would have to hire lawyers to bring an international law suit against HRM, which would be costly even if they win the case.

The other issue is that both companies are in different trademark 'classes,' ie., they don't provide the same types of services, so it might be hard to argue brand confusion in the lawsuit. This Ubuntu text (not logo) is registered in 3 classes (9, 41, 42) according to the USPTO since 2006-10-03: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?r...entry=76616408

Check out all the other Ubuntu's registered (19) in different classes just in the US.

[update] direct links don't work, so go here, click New User Form Search (Basic), then type ubuntu: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?...glish&p_d=trmk

Also, I don't see the logo officially registered (unless it's under a different name). This just means they'd have a bit less legal protection with the logo if they take the case to court.

-------------------

Side note: I designed a logo for a non-profit company back in 2004, but it never got used. The weird thing is that one of the variations looked a lot like the current Ubuntu logo, so when I saw it later, it was really freaky to me. This logo of mine never saw the light of day (the went with something totally different), but it's weird. Even the colors I chose (for a multi-cultrual international institution) were very similar.

You bring up good points, many people here are a bit too "Ubuntu-centric" to even realize that the word Ubuntu was used long before Mark Shuttleworth started using it by http://ubuntu.org/ should these people sue Canonical?...no, I think not.

As you have also shown other people came up with this logo design before Ubuntu started using it, as you have clearly shown your design. Should you sue HMR and Canonical?...no, I think not.

The Ubuntu logo clearly is Not as original as the "Ubuntu-centric" minded people think it is, just as the utilization of the word Ubuntu is not original either.

Utilization of the Ubuntu word and Ubuntu logo may only be original to the Linux/Open Source community but that is it! Reality encompasses many different variables beyond Linux, beyond Open Source. Just as people in general should not be ego-centric or ethno-centric, perhaps Ubuntu users should not be so Ubuntu-Centric.

[forrestcupp]

We're a Free community. Let's sue the pants off of anyone who comes up with an idea similar to ours! You guys kind of remind me of Microsoft.

HMR should sue Canonical for stealing their logo.

[joey-elijah]

HMR should sue Canonical for stealing their logo.

Where's your proof that it was "theirs" before Canonical? Regardless of who had it first, Canonical hold the copyright. End of.

[pwnst*r]

Digg it! http://digg.com/linux_unix/HMR_group...he_Ubuntu_Logo

nah.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Before this moves to Digg, let me again restate that I really, dearly hope we don't get a swarm of vigilante "lawyers" who think they are "helping" Canonical. They can handle it just fine themselves and could probably do without an angry, disorganized mob carrying their name.