HMR group possibly stealing the Ubuntu Logo

[Orlsend]

I found this on Reddit and I was amazed nobody is talking about it over here. Well the site http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/ is been using this logo which is strictly forbidden by the Ubuntu trademark policy http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

Here is HMR:

http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/images/newlogo.gif

Ubuntu's Logo:

http://ubuntuforums.org/images/misc/ubuntulogo.png

[billgoldberg]

I found this on Reddit and I was amazed nobody is talking about it over here. Well the site http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/ Been using this logo which is strictly forbidden by the Ubuntu trademark http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

Here is HMR:

http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/images/newlogo.gif

Ubuntu's Logo:

http://ubuntuforums.org/images/misc/ubuntulogo.png

It's a clear rip-off.

I don't know how those guys designing the logo for that company thought nobody was going to notice.

There are millions of Ubuntu users.

Have you already contacted Canonical?

[dspari1]

Canonical should sue! ):P

[billgoldberg]

Canonical should sue! ):P

No they shouldn't at first.

HMR most likely is unaware that the guys they hired to make the logo used an existing one.

I'm sure that if Canonical brings that to their attention, HMR will change the logo.

[Giant Speck]

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

Also, I don't think it's possible to trademark the concept of a logo featuring three people holding hands in a circle.

[Orlsend]

No I havent noticed Canonical, I although over reddit theres big hype in the linux comunity so I am sure they already covered that.

I think this email template would be the best thing:



To whom it may concern:

As I'm no doubt sure you are aware, your company is currently receiving some rather negative publicity due to your choice in logos being so very similar to that of the Ubuntu logo used by Canonical, Inc. (Reference: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1159916 )

While it is a minuscule amount right now, I cannot help but note that such usage as shown on this page ( http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/ ) is explicitly forbidden by the terms of use that Canonical issued for the logo of the Ubuntu distribution of Linux ( http://www.ubuntu.com/ ).

I do not, myself, expect a response to this message. However, your courtesy in promptly altering your page to remove any images similar to that of the Ubuntu logo would be well received by myself, and the Linux community as a whole.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and attention.

[My Name],
Ubuntu user and resident of [City, State I live in]

[billgoldberg]

Also, I don't think it's possible to trademark the concept of a logo featuring three people holding hands in a circle.

Sure it is. Maybe not three people holding hands in a circle, but that's not what the logo is (I know that it represents three people, but they aren't people). I see a circle with some dots.

It's is a copy/paste of the Ubuntu logo, with different colours.

[billgoldberg]

No I havent noticed Canonical, I although over reddit theres big hype in the linux comunity so I am sure they already covered that.

I think this email template would be the best thing:



To whom it may concern:

As I'm no doubt sure you are aware, your company is currently receiving some rather negative publicity due to your choice in logos being so very similar to that of the Ubuntu logo used by Canonical, Inc. (Reference: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1159916 )

While it is a minuscule amount right now, I cannot help but note that such usage as shown on this page ( http://www.hmrgroup.co.uk/ ) is explicitly forbidden by the terms of use that Canonical issued for the logo of the Ubuntu distribution of Linux ( http://www.ubuntu.com/ ).

I do not, myself, expect a response to this message. However, your courtesy in promptly altering your page to remove any images similar to that of the Ubuntu logo would be well received by myself, and the Linux community as a whole.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and attention.

[My Name],
Ubuntu user and resident of [City, State I live in]



Just to be sure, I'll inform them.

[Orlsend]

HMR's e-mail:

enquiries@hmrgroup.co.uk

I also sent one email.

[Paqman]

I think this email template would be the best thing:


You can notify Canonical of anyone ripping off the Ubuntu trademark yourself:

http://www.ubuntu.com/contact/trademarkviolation

It's their job to chase these things up really.

[lisati]

HMR's e-mail:

enquiries@hmrgroup.co.uk

I also sent one email.

Ditto. I hope they get the hint. It will be interesting to see how they respond (if at all)

[Giant Speck]

Here is the Ubuntu logo (in black), superimposed on top of the HMR logo:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/logocomparison.png

By superimposing the Ubuntu logo on top of the HMR logo, it makes it easier to show the differences between the two logos. Both logos are 85 pixels wide and 85 pixels high.

1.) The HMR logo is of a different color.
2.) The HMR logo is thicker.
3.) THe HMR logo is rotated slightly clockwise.
4.) The space between each "friend" in the HMR logo is much narrower. Similarly, the space that separates each "friend"'s head from their respective bodies is narrower.
5.) The center circle in the HMR logo is wider than the center circle in the Ubuntu logo.

Therefore, this logo wasn't a simple copy-and-paste job as you suggested. This was made from scratch and coincidentally looks like the Ubuntu logo.

[Orlsend]

I think if its rotated a tiny nudge it will be a thiner copy of Ubuntu's Logo.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/hmrgroup.co.uk/* The Way back Machine has not records of this site, so it could be new site. Possibly based on the Ubuntu Logo.

[billgoldberg]

Here is the Ubuntu logo (in black), superimposed on top of the HMR logo:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/logocomparison.png

By superimposing the Ubuntu logo on top of the HMR logo, it makes it easier to show the differences between the two logos. Both logos are 85 pixels wide and 85 pixels high.

1.) The HMR logo is of a different color.
2.) The HMR logo is thicker.
3.) THe HMR logo is rotated slightly clockwise.
4.) The space between each "friend" in the HMR logo is much narrower. Similarly, the space that separates each "friend"'s head from their respective bodies is narrower.
5.) The center circle in the HMR logo is wider than the center circle in the Ubuntu logo.

Therefore, this logo wasn't a simple copy-and-paste job as you suggested. This was made from scratch and coincidentally looks like the Ubuntu logo.

Are you serious?

Of course they ripped it off.

This was not an accident. And even if it was, they would still have to remove it.

--

I wonder what lets say "Nike" would do if you modified their logo to be slightly more tilted and a few mm thinner.

[Giant Speck]

I think if its rotated a tiny nudge it will be a thiner copy of Ubuntu's Logo.

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/logocomparison-rotated.png

Notice that even rotated, the Ubuntu logo is still different.

[Orlsend]

I remembered a case like this, both Logo's had differences and similarities. Yet at the end the logo was taken down with out reaching a lawsuit.

http://www.inatux.com/articles5.php

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1056743&highlight=combat+arms

[billgoldberg]

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/logocomparison-rotated.png

Notice that even rotated, the Ubuntu logo is still different.

It's the same logo, slightly modified.

Every rational person sees that.

[Orlsend]

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/logocomparison-rotated.png

Notice that even rotated, the Ubuntu logo is still different.

I think you just kinda proved the point. could you please attach the dark Ubuntu layout. I want to show what I also meant.

[Giant Speck]

I think you just kinda proved the point. could you please attach the dark Ubuntu layout. I want to show what I also meant.

Here:

Ubuntu logo
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/ubuntulogo.png

HMR logo
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/hmr.png

Manipulate it all you want.

[hobo14]

Here:

Ubuntu logo
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/ubuntulogo.png

HMR logo
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/hmr.png

Manipulate it all you want.

You are being extremely generous..

If you had seen the HMR logo isolated, would you have known that it wasn't the Ubuntu logo? I wouldn't have.

[Giant Speck]

You are being extremely generous..

If you had seen the HMR logo isolated, would you have known that it wasn't the Ubuntu logo? I wouldn't have.

Yes, I would have. They may look remarkably similar, but the differences between them are obvious.

[NCLI]

Not obvious enough for the average person not to think the same company could be behind bith HMR and Ubuntu though.

[Joeb454]

I emailed canonical about this a few weeks ago (there was another thread on the subject)

Here's the reply I got :)


Dear Joe,

Thank you for taking the time to report this to us.

========

From their website:

HMR Group
226 Saint Georges Road,
Bolton
Bl1 2PH

Office opening hours:
Monday to Friday 9am – 5pm
Telephone: 01204 384522

enquiries@hmrgroup.co.uk

========

Just to let you know that we are dealing with this through the appropriate channels.

Thank you for your support of Ubuntu!

Kind regards,

Michelle

Michelle Surtees-Myers

Canonical UK Ltd
Ubuntu - Linux for human beings | www.ubuntu.com | www.canonical.com

[tombott]

Yes, I would have. They may look remarkably similar, but the differences between them are obvious.

lol, are you on crack?

Seriously it's a blatant rip-off of the Ubuntu logo.

If I was to take Nike's tick logo, rotate it slightly and make it thinner would that be ok?
No of course it wouldn't and I have Nike's lawyers on my **** quicker than you can boot my Ubuntu 9.04 driven Asus EeePC.

[Giant Speck]

Seriously it's a blatant rip-off of the Ubuntu logo.

First of all, I have said multiple times that the HMR Group logo is remarkably similar to the Ubuntu logo.
That is a fact.

There are two things being said in this thread that are not facts:

1.) HMR Group ripped-off the logo.
This is obviously not a fact. It's speculation. Can you honestly tell me that you can automatically ascertain the intentions of HMR Group by simply looking at both its logo and Ubuntu's logo? Show me evidence that HMR Group purposely stole Ubuntu's logo and I will retract this statement.
2.) The HMR Group logo is a copy-and-paste duplicate of the Ubuntu logo.
I have demonstrated by superimposing the Ubuntu logo over the HMR Group logo that it is impossible that HMR Group simply copied and pasted Ubuntu's logo and changed the colors. For it to be an exact copy-and-paste duplicate of the Ubuntu logo, all I would have had to do was rotate one of the logos and they would have overlapped perfectly. I have shown that there are distinct differences in the two logos that make them not identical.

[Orlsend]

lol, are you on crack?

Seriously it's a blatant rip-off of the Ubuntu logo.

If I was to take Nike's tick logo, rotate it slightly and make it thinner would that be ok?
No of course it wouldn't and I have Nike's lawyers on my **** quicker than you can boot my Ubuntu 9.04 driven Asus EeePC.

Although it pretty obvious to some, there is no need to call people "High".

Now it seems we only can wait.

[tsali]

But wait a minute!

What's wrong with downloading and using someone else's intellectual property for free?

I thought FOSS advocates had problems with the principle of IP ownership and control?

[Tristam Green]

I smell a potential shill in this thread.


But wait a minute!

What's wrong with downloading and using someone else's intellectual property for free?

I thought FOSS advocates had problems with the principle of IP ownership and control?

No, we don't, not when used properly. As in, functions of a business. A logo is a business function, as is a trademark, and ripping one off to create another is altogether rather unforgivable.

[Rainstride]

Here is the Ubuntu logo (in black), superimposed on top of the HMR logo:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/logocomparison.png

By superimposing the Ubuntu logo on top of the HMR logo, it makes it easier to show the differences between the two logos. Both logos are 85 pixels wide and 85 pixels high.

1.) The HMR logo is of a different color.
2.) The HMR logo is thicker.
3.) THe HMR logo is rotated slightly clockwise.
4.) The space between each "friend" in the HMR logo is much narrower. Similarly, the space that separates each "friend"'s head from their respective bodies is narrower.
5.) The center circle in the HMR logo is wider than the center circle in the Ubuntu logo.

Therefore, this logo wasn't a simple copy-and-paste job as you suggested. This was made from scratch and coincidentally looks like the Ubuntu logo.

and coincidentally whether or not it was made from scratch it is still a blatant rip off of the ubuntu logo witch is copyrighted by Canonical. it was probably "made" by some small company that though it would never be noticed.(as if though the 20millon or more ubuntu user would never see it.)

[Orlsend]

A realtors web-site logo does not fit in the category on non-cormercial. Anyways its trademark you can use it as long as you respect the agreement.

This draft trademark policy is itself published under the CC-BY-SA license, you are welcome to base your own project trademark policies off it, just let others use your changes and give credit to the Ubuntu project as the original source!

[pwnst*r]

i like how NOBODY addressed Giant Speck's statement about HMR being two years older than Canonical.

[Giant Speck]

and coincidentally whether or not it was made from scratch it is still a blatant rip off of the ubuntu logo witch is copyrighted by Canonical. it was probably "made" by some small company that though it would never be noticed.(as if though the 20millon or more ubuntu user would never see it.)

Again, this is nothing more than speculation. We do not know the true intentions of HMR Group. People here see an almost identical logo and automatically assume that HMR Group did it on purpose.

Did they really do it on purpose? We're never going to know unless there is solid proof that HMR Group intentionally copied the logo.

The fact that HMR Group's logo is nearly identical to Ubuntu's logo simply proves that a trademark violation has been made, but the logo itself does not prove whether or not HMR Group's use of the logo was malicious, nor does it prove that HMR Group knew about the trademark in the first place.

[Giant Speck]

i like how NOBODY addressed Giant Speck's statement about HMR being two years older than Canonical.

I'm no longer using that as an argument because while HMR Group is older than Canonical, there is no evidence to show that HMR Group had been using the logo before Canonical had.

[Rainstride]

i like how NOBODY addressed Giant Speck's statement about HMR being two years older than Canonical.

the question isn't if they are older, its if they had the logo at the time. and if they have a copyright on it. iv seen companies get a new logo after years of being around.

[pwnst*r]

I'm no longer using that as an argument because while HMR Group is older than Canonical, there is no evidence to show that HMR Group had been using the logo before Canonical had.

and i gathered that, but it's interesting how nobody touched it with a ten foot pole.

blinders anyone?

[pwnst*r]

the question isn't if they are older, its if they had the logo at the time. and if they have a copyright on it. iv seen companies get a new logo after years of being around.

hey look, someone addressed it.

[Tristam Green]

i like how NOBODY addressed Giant Speck's statement about HMR being two years older than Canonical.

It's because it's an irrelevant argument, really, rather than "who had the logo first?"

Also, HMR Group's Logo seems to have changed:
Disregard that, I was looking at the wrong website lol.

[Rainstride]

Again, this is nothing more than speculation. We do not know the true intentions of HMR Group. People here see an almost identical logo and automatically assume that HMR Group did it on purpose.

Did they really do it on purpose? We're never going to know unless there is solid proof that HMR Group intentionally copied the logo.

The fact that HMR Group's logo is nearly identical to Ubuntu's logo simply proves that a trademark violation has been made, but the logo itself does not prove whether or not HMR Group's use of the logo was malicious, nor does it prove that HMR Group knew about the trademark in the first place.

true, im not saying hmr did it on purpose. most companies hire design groups to make logos and things like this. so, hmr probably has no clue. that being said, the chances that whoever made this just so happened to come up with the same logo as ubuntu off the top of his head is slim to none.

[pwnst*r]

yes, who had the logo first? it's quite plausible that HMR did. so until we know that, they didn't "steal" a thing.

[Giant Speck]

It's because it's an irrelevant argument, really, rather than "who had the logo first?"

Which is why I'm not arguing that portion of my statement any more. Even if HMR Group's logo is older than Canonical's, there is no way to prove it.

I think pwnst*r is making a point that not even he realizes he's making. And that is, no one is reading my posts fully. They're taking bits and pieces out of my posts and are twisting my words.

[Tristam Green]

yes, who had the logo first? it's quite plausible that HMR did. so until we know that, they didn't "steal" a thing.

Plausible, yes. Likely, I don't know.


Which is why I'm not arguing that portion of my statement any more. Even if HMR Group's logo is older than Canonical's, there is no way to prove it.

Exactly, and that was the reason in the first place I didn't touch that argument at all. Arguing an irrelevant point is just perpetuating irrelevance, as it were.


I think pwnst*r is making a point that not even he realizes he's making. And that is, no one is reading my posts fully. They're taking bits and pieces out of my posts and are twisting my words.

Could be. I do think it's a bit far-fetched to say "well, if you rotate it 13 degrees, make the margins different, and thin the lines, it's a different logo" - it's almost like saying "heck naw, I didn't sample Queen's 'Under Pressure' for 'Ice Ice Baby'; they're completely different!"

[pwnst*r]

that was my point, GS :) that's why i mentioned blinders, but more like applying fanboi filters to your posts and extracting only what they want to read then twisting it as you said.

i guess until the who had the logo first argument is proved, there's no sense in bothering with the rest of this thread as it's pure SPECKulation ;)

[Tristam Green]

it's pure SPECKulation ;)

Could it be GIANT SPECKulation, even?

[Giant Speck]

Could be. I do think it's a bit far-fetched to say "well, if you rotate it 13 degrees, make the margins different, and thin the lines, it's a different logo" - it's almost like saying "heck naw, I didn't sample Queen's 'Under Pressure' for 'Ice Ice Baby'; they're completely different!"

The two logos are different, but that isn't my point. My point is that everyone is saying it's a rip-off or a copy-and-paste duplicate of the Ubuntu logo. If that was true, then overlapping them would prove that they are identical. However, there are enough differences in the HMR Group logo that it's highly implausible that HMR Group manipulated the Ubuntu logo image itself to make their own logo. Whether they intentionally stole the logo concept or not, they certainly didn't use the actual Ubuntu logo to do so.

[pwnst*r]

Could it be GIANT SPECKulation, even?

lol, perhaps.

[Giant Speck]

that was my point, GS :) that's why i mentioned blinders, but more like applying fanboi filters to your posts and extracting only what they want to read then twisting it as you said.

i guess until the who had the logo first argument is proved, there's no sense in bothering with the rest of this thread as it's pure SPECKulation ;)

http://fc02.deviantart.com/images3/i/2004/11/3/e/Rim_Shot_emoticon.gif


Could it be GIANT SPECKulation, even?

http://fc02.deviantart.com/images3/i/2004/11/3/e/Rim_Shot_emoticon.gif

[Scruffynerf]

Which is why I'm not arguing that portion of my statement any more. Even if HMR Group's logo is older than Canonical's, there is no way to prove it.


Of course there is. You think that corporate logos come into the world without any paperwork?

Dated design briefs? Invoice and order contracts, all dated?

[Paqman]

I'm pretty sure any trademark lawyer would advise their client not to try taking Giant Speck's defence into court. You'd go down in flames.

HMR have clearly been ripped off by whoever designed their logo. If I was them i'd be just take the offending logo down and sic my own lawyers onto the offending designers for the costs of rebranding.

[Giant Speck]

Of course there is. You think that corporate logos come into the world without any paperwork?

Dated design briefs? Invoice and order contracts, all dated?

I meant it cannot be proven from the way that the logo is currently being presented, due to the fact that there aren't any archived or cached copies of HMR Group's website.

[Giant Speck]

I'm pretty sure any trademark lawyer would advise their client not to try taking Giant Speck's defence into court. You'd go down in flames.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply saying that no one here has any proof of HMR's intentions. You can't ascertain intent from a logo, even if it is nearly identical.

[Paqman]

I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply saying that no one here has any proof of HMR's intentions. You can't ascertain intent from a logo, even if it is nearly identical.

I think you're splitting hairs.

There's no evidence to suggest that it wasn't copied, and some pretty convincing evidence that it was.

On balance, do you think it's reasonable to assert that the logo was a rip off?

[MellonCollie]

There's no evidence to suggest that it wasn't copied, and some pretty convincing evidence that it was.

On balance, do you think it's reasonable to assert that the logo was a rip off?

On what date did HMR Group start using their logo?

[Giant Speck]

On balance, do you think it's reasonable to assert that the logo was a rip off?

Yes. I'm not saying it's impossible that the logo was ripped off. I'm not saying it wasn't ripped off. I'm saying that people in this thread are automatically jumping to conclusions by looking at a picture and not presenting facts to back themselves up.

[Paqman]

On what date did HMR Group start using their logo?

You'd have to ask them.


Yes. I'm not saying it's impossible that the logo was ripped off. I'm not saying it wasn't ripped off. I'm saying that people in this thread are automatically jumping to conclusions by looking at a picture and not presenting facts to back themselves up.

Not unreasonable conclusions though, and given that it's unlikely anyone posting here is actually privy to the above information I don't really think it's reasonable to expect them to be spewing hard facts.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this, tbh :confused:

[MellonCollie]

On what date did HMR Group start using their logo?


You'd have to ask them.



Indeed. So wouldn't it be a good idea to hold off making comments like this...


HMR have clearly been ripped off by whoever designed their logo. If I was them i'd be just take the offending logo down and sic my own lawyers onto the offending designers for the costs of rebranding.



...until the facts are in?

[Paqman]

Indeed. So wouldn't it be a good idea to hold off making comments like this...



...until the facts are in?

It's my opinion. In the absence of any information to the contrary, I stand by it.

[LowSky]

This whole argument reminds me of the movie, Eddie Murphy movie Coming to America,

"They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs."

[ibuclaw]

To quote the trademarks page:

Canonical owns a number of trademarks and these include UBUNTU, KUBUNTU, EDUBUNTU, and XUBUNTU. The trademarks are registered in both word and logo form. Any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU is sufficiently similar to one or more of the trademarks that permission will be needed in order to use it. This policy encompasses all marks, in word and logo form, collectively referred to as “Trademarks”.
I personally think that there is an overall lax view of this, and the overall copyrights only encompass other Linux distributions, (ie: GeUbuntu was renamed to OpenGEU, and EeeUbuntu was renamed to EasyPeasy because of the infringements against the Ubuntu name).

It is very easy to take two separate ideas from isolation and produce the same thing. Because of this reason - the marvelous way we humans think - we still have Ubuntu Cola (http://www.ubuntu-trading.com/index) and Ubuntu Wine (http://www.kwv.co.za/brands/view/32) still alive and active.

IMO, the logo difference between Ubuntu and HMR reminds me of when Apple tried sue a Canadian University because of the similarity between these two logos: http://cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/logo.jpg

[tombott]

First of all, I have said multiple times that the HMR Group logo is remarkably similar to the Ubuntu logo.
That is a fact.

There are two things being said in this thread that are not facts:

1.) HMR Group ripped-off the logo.
This is obviously not a fact. It's speculation. Can you honestly tell me that you can automatically ascertain the intentions of HMR Group by simply looking at both its logo and Ubuntu's logo? Show me evidence that HMR Group purposely stole Ubuntu's logo and I will retract this statement.
2.) The HMR Group logo is a copy-and-paste duplicate of the Ubuntu logo.
I have demonstrated by superimposing the Ubuntu logo over the HMR Group logo that it is impossible that HMR Group simply copied and pasted Ubuntu's logo and changed the colors. For it to be an exact copy-and-paste duplicate of the Ubuntu logo, all I would have had to do was rotate one of the logos and they would have overlapped perfectly. I have shown that there are distinct differences in the two logos that make them not identical.


Yeah they made a huge effort changing the colour scheme!

I don't know if your for real or not, but your doing a good job of making me laugh.

[tombott]

Although it pretty obvious to some, there is no need to call people "High".

Now it seems we only can wait.

cool your boots man, it was a joke!
But after reading more of his posts its looking like a distinct possibility.

[subdivision]

Oh wow, it looks similar. Everybody should freak out.

[Giant Speck]

Yeah they made a huge effort changing the colour scheme!

I don't know if your for real or not, but your doing a good job of making me laugh.

You must not know how to read, or you're just ignoring some of my posts so you can make me out to look like an idiot. I clearly outlined the differences between the two logos. You should go back and read them. It isn't a simple "change the color scheme" difference.

[subdivision]

You must not know how to read, or you're just ignoring some of my posts so you can make me out to look like an idiot. I clearly outlined the differences between the two logos. You should go back and read them. It isn't a simple "change the color scheme" difference.

But.. but... they both have CIRCLES! It's clear that these HMR people are trying to ride on the coat tails of Ubuntu's massive popularity.

I agree with you, everyone is jumping to conclusions and getting worked up over nothing.

[Icehuck]

Yeah they made a huge effort changing the colour scheme!

I don't know if your for real or not, but your doing a good job of making me laugh.


Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that it isn't a blatant copy and paste? I can draw the same logo and use the same colors but it's not a blatant copy and paste. Why is it so hard for you understand that it's possible that it isn't a deliberate trademark violation?

[Orlsend]

oh wow, it looks similar. Everybody should freak out.

But.. but... they both have CIRCLES! It's clear that these HMR people are trying to ride on the coat tails of Ubuntu's massive popularity.

I agree with you, everyone is jumping to conclusions and getting worked up over nothing.

I am not sure what your Intentions are, but unless you have something constructive to add up to this thread, Maybe its better to reserve Inflammatory comments and sarcasm. the best thing is to keep things cool down here.

[pwnst*r]

tombott, i suggest you read all of Giant Speck's posts instead of using your personal word filters/interpreters. You're clearly not understanding his angle.

[Therion]

.
Please stop feeding the attention ***** troll everyone.

[pwnst*r]

**peanuts**

[Giant Speck]

.
Please stop feeding the attention ***** troll everyone.

How can I stop feeding him if I don't even know who he is?

[Rainstride]

.
Please stop feeding the attention ***** troll everyone.

witch one?

[Tipped OuT]

The logo doesn't have to be exactly the same to violate the trademark. Trademark violations hardly are ever an exact copy.

Basically, the only difference is the space between the objects, and the angle.

Say my avatar's Ubuntu logo was a trademark violation, for example, if I just turned it a differn't angle, it's not violating the trademark anymore? Come on guys...

If you think this HMR logo is not a trademark violation, hope you're not my lawyer some day.:lolflag:

[Eclipse.]

Theres more of a chance we stole the logo from them, they started out in 2001 where as Ubuntu was not born until 2003.

Not saying Canonical did steal the logo from them, just thats more likely.

[Giant Speck]

Theres more of a chance we stole the logo from them, they started out in 2001 where as Ubuntu was not born until 2003.

Not saying Canonical did steal the logo from them, just thats more likely.

There was a thread like this a while back about a company that had a logo similar to Ubuntu's logo, only it had four people holding hands instead of three. Like this thread, there were a lot of claims that the logo was a ripoff... until someone pointed out that the company had had that logo for years before Canonical was even a company.

[Tristam Green]

Theres more of a chance we stole the logo from them, they started out in 2001 where as Ubuntu was not born until 2003.

Not saying Canonical did steal the logo from them, just thats more likely.

Once again, just because the company has not been around longer, does not mean the logo has been around longer. My company has been around nearly ten years and didn't start using its current brand logo until 2007.

And likewise, Canonical has been around since 2004, not '03.

And, Canonical's logo is different than the Ubuntu logo, but close enough to be a derived trademark.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Canonical_logo.svg

URL because vB doesn't support svg images :???:

[Tipped OuT]

Once again, just because the company has not been around longer, does not mean the logo has been around longer. My company has been around nearly ten years and didn't start using its current brand logo until 2007.

Thank you.

[Giant Speck]

Once again, just because the company has not been around longer, does not mean the logo has been around longer. My company has been around nearly ten years and didn't start using its current brand logo until 2007.

He said there was a chance; he didn't say that it was likely the case.

[pwnst*r]

The logo doesn't have to be exactly the same to violate the trademark. Trademark violations hardly are ever an exact copy.

Basically, the only difference is the space between the objects, and the angle.

Say my avatar's Ubuntu logo was a trademark violation, for example, if I just turned it a differn't angle, it's not violating the trademark anymore? Come on guys...

If you think this HMR logo is not a trademark violation, hope you're not my lawyer some day. :lolflag:

thanks for going back and using bold for your post. i couldn't read it before.

[Tipped OuT]

thanks for going back and using bold for your post. i couldn't read it before.

No problem.

[Tristam Green]

thanks for going back and using bold for your post. i couldn't read it before.

To further enhance it, he *could* post it in red bold. :P

[-grubby]

No problem.

Please make the font larger I'm having trouble reading it.

[Eclipse.]

Once again, just because the company has not been around longer, does not mean the logo has been around longer. My company has been around nearly ten years and didn't start using its current brand logo until 2007.

And likewise, Canonical has been around since 2004, not '03.

And, Canonical's logo is different than the Ubuntu logo, but close enough to be a derived trademark.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Canonical_logo.svg

URL because vB doesn't support svg images :???:

2004 sorry, thats what I meant.

Canonical created the Ubuntu logo obviously so yeah.Your other point, already covered by Giant Spec.

[calrogman]

To further enhance it, he *could* post it in red bold. :P

I'm not sure, I think bold is okay, but bold and red? That's a bit much.

[pwnst*r]

Please make the font larger I'm having trouble reading it.

good point, it'll further reinforce in his mind that someone will read it.

[Tipped OuT]

good point, it'll further reinforce in his mind that someone will read it.


It's funny how a simple post format change, can make some one go off topic. Please don't take your anger out on me, if you don't want me to post it in bold, then just say so politely.

Post fixed.

[pwnst*r]

It's funny how a simple post format change, can make some one go off topic. Please don't take your anger out on me, if you don't want me to post it in bold, then just say so politely.

Post fixed.

please show me where i came off as angry.

thanks.

on topic: nothing to talk about until someone shows proof.

[Giant Speck]

It's funny how a simple post format change, can make some one go off topic. Please don't take your anger out on me, if you don't want me to post it in bold, then just say so politely.

Post fixed.

Don't change it back! Your text will look like my text and people will think you're ripping off my text formatting!

[Tristam Green]

It's funny how a simple post format change, can make some one go off topic. Please don't take your anger out on me, if you don't want me to post it in bold, then just say so politely.

Post fixed.

Ahh, relax. Just having a little bit of mindless fun at your expense with you! :lolflag:

[Tipped OuT]

please show me where i came off as angry.

thanks.


thanks for going back and using bold for your post. i couldn't read it before.

Your sarcasm says it all. Maybe not angry, but rude. Any ways, I don't want to argue or anything, I do not like arguing, I just want to be apart of a forum without being banned for once. Thanks. :)

[metromapper]

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?regser=serial&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?f=login&p_lang=english&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.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Please don't spam them.

[Tipped OuT]

[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?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk

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.

The first logo could be exceptional. I wouldn't notice that it resembles the Ubuntu logo unless I was comparing them side to side.

Nice post by the way. ;)

[tsali]

I smell a potential shill in this thread.



No, we don't, not when used properly. As in, functions of a business. A logo is a business function, as is a trademark, and ripping one off to create another is altogether rather unforgivable.

Typical. I point out what I see as an irony and I'm immediately labeled a shill.

Do you even know what a shill is?

[Tristam Green]

Typical. I point out what I see as an irony and I'm immediately labeled a shill.

Do you even know what a shill is?


*eyebrow*

I don't recall labeling you as such.

If I had, I'd have quoted you, then said "I smell a shill".

Matter of fact, I was (in the moment) alluding to Giant Speck, an assessment that I retract in light of further understanding of his reasoning; his reasoning may be sound, even though I do not agree with it.

[windows-killer]

ubuntu is open source!

in open source you have the right to copy and sell the content. So whats the problem here? Ubuntu and and the ubuntu logo are open source, and everyone can copy it and rename it to anything they want and they can sell it.

[Therion]

... Ubuntu and and the ubuntu logo are open source, and everyone can copy it and rename it to anything they want and they can sell it.
The Ubuntu name and logo are trademarked property of Canonical LTD.


© 2009 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd.
Source: http://www.canonical.com/

[windows-killer]

The Ubuntu name and logo are trademarked property of Canonical LTD.


Source: http://www.canonical.com/

ok
This tells me that canonical is close sourcing its logo. why would you want to use their OS since it has a small closed source component? same thing applies to launchpad.
I know many Linux users hate having a closed source component on their OS regardless if its offered at no cost with or without agreements.
I love ubuntu but am trying to understand you guys by asking you all these questions. although to be honest, I would not mind if ubuntu was the same OS (linux based) but closed source and I would not mind paying for it.

[lisati]

ok
This tells me that canonical is close sourcing its logo. why would you want to use their OS since it has a small closed source component? same thing applies to launchpad.
I know many Linux users hate having a closed source component on their OS regardless if its offered at no cost with or without agreements.
I love ubuntu but am trying to understand you guys by asking you all these questions. although to be honest, I would not mind if ubuntu was the same OS (linux based) but closed source and I would not mind paying for it.

And now a word from our sponsor.........






(just kidding)
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Even with OSS, there's usually some kind of terms and conditions (an example can be found here (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html))
Don't our friends at Canonical have a right to protect their investment of time and money?

[pwnst*r]

Don't our friends at Canonical have a right to protect their investment of time and money?

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

[lethalfang]

ubuntu is open source!

in open source you have the right to copy and sell the content. So whats the problem here? Ubuntu and and the ubuntu logo are open source, and everyone can copy it and rename it to anything they want and they can sell it.

Ubuntu's Linux's source code is open source, not the trademark.
Whoever has registered that trademark first in a particular country will have the right to remain that trademark. The other party will be forced to change its logo. It's as simple as that.

[lethalfang]

ok
This tells me that canonical is close sourcing its logo. why would you want to use their OS since it has a small closed source component? same thing applies to launchpad.
I know many Linux users hate having a closed source component on their OS regardless if its offered at no cost with or without agreements.
I love ubuntu but am trying to understand you guys by asking you all these questions. although to be honest, I would not mind if ubuntu was the same OS (linux based) but closed source and I would not mind paying for it.

The idea of GPL is that the source code is open, so you and I have the right to copy the source code, and give it a different logo if we wish, and then redistribute the same source code with a different logo as we wish.
Trademark is an entirely different concept. A trademark is a representation of a company.

[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_possibly_stealing_the_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?regser=serial&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?f=login&p_lang=english&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_possibly_stealing_the_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.

[entr3p]

nah.

Pointless post of the morning :D. Anyways as someone stated before even though there's the possibility that the logo was used by the HMR group before Canonical they still don't own the copyright. I don't really believe suing them is going to do anything but they should switch logos as soon as possible.

[CharmyBee]

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.
You're absolutely right. Canonical has no right to protect their trademark! :roll:

[BlackCow]

Look, heres another one: http://poolinvest.net/

Unless the company was somehow tarnishing the reputation of the logo somehow then it really doesn't matter. For example if they were releasing a closed sourced crappy Operating System with that logo then there would be an issue but some investment company that has nothing to do with operating systems really isn't hurting the Ubuntu image.

I would like to know who the hell sold them the logo design though lol, if anything HMR and Pool Invest should sue whoever their graphic designer was.

[subdivision]

Look, heres another one: http://poolinvest.net/

Unless the company was somehow tarnishing the reputation of the logo somehow then it really doesn't matter. For example if they were releasing a closed sourced crappy Operating System with that logo then there would be an issue but some investment company that has nothing to do with operating systems really isn't hurting the Ubuntu image.

I would like to know who the hell sold them the logo design though lol, if anything HMR and Pool Invest should sue whoever their graphic designer was.

Oh man, it's everywhere! Break out the pitchforks and torches.

[genuchelu]

psh...who cares if thy're using the ubuntu logo...It's conical lawyer's job to deal with it. Not mine or yours...

Its not like I'm going to accidently install a "pool invest" or a "HMR" on my computer instead of ubuntu...

[subdivision]

Its not like I'm going to accidently install a "pool invest" or a "HMR" on my computer instead of ubuntu...

Even though that might be interesting. :D

[LucasHenderson]

For those of you saying they might have had the logo before Canonical, I advise you take a look at the filename of the image:
http://hmrgroup.co.uk/images/newlogo.gif

Apparently, their logo hasn't always been this, if it's named "newlogo"

[subdivision]

For those of you saying they might have had the logo before Canonical, I advise you take a look at the filename of the image:
http://hmrgroup.co.uk/images/newlogo.gif

Apparently, their logo hasn't always been this, if it's named "newlogo"

How long do you think they should use it before changing it to another filename? Of course it was new at some point. We don't know how long ago that was.

[pwnst*r]

For those of you saying they might have had the logo before Canonical, I advise you take a look at the filename of the image:
http://hmrgroup.co.uk/images/newlogo.gif

Apparently, their logo hasn't always been this, if it's named "newlogo"

that's the proof we've been looking for! case closed!

[LucasHenderson]

How long do you think they should use it before changing it to another filename? Of course it was new at some point. We don't know how long ago that was.

This is true. I know it is not 100% conclusive evidence, I merely meant it was a fact worth considering.

[subdivision]

This is true. I know it is not 100% conclusive evidence, I merely meant it was a fact worth considering.

Indeed, sorry if I came off as dismissive. :)

[LucasHenderson]

Something I came across whilst browsing digg:
http://luiscosio.com/ubuntu-lettuce

[warnec]

http://www.smallbusinesshq.com.au/images/profile/6451.jpg
http://www.eworldrecyclers.com/images/logo/logo%20new/hmr.gif
this is there old logo lol still using the 3 point concept even back then so I don't know what to say and oh about how obvious the logos are similar I took this photo

http://i42.tinypic.com/59sahk.png

[Methuselah]

Well, they're not an OS or software so I don't think it's a big deal.
However, it sure is lazy if all the designers did was download Ubuntu's logo and modify it a bit.
HMR group should get its money back!

[HavocXphere]

It's on Digg.com:

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Ubuntu_logo_stolen

[Dharmachakra]

This is not nearly as big of a deal as some users are making it out to be...

[Wiebelhaus]

Omg nerd drama.

[vishzilla]

lol.. make that ubuntu logo stolen twice. last week i found a pack of chips with an Ubuntu logo on it.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Agh, who is digging that?
Canonical's lawyer(s) are going to have a heart attack, and it will have nothing to do with HMR.

[sim-value]

GO GO GO!!!

Get your SHOVELS !!!
Burn them down !!!!

Roast THEM !!!!

[pwnst*r]

http://www.smallbusinesshq.com.au/images/profile/6451.jpg
http://www.eworldrecyclers.com/images/logo/logo%20new/hmr.gif
this is there old logo lol still using the 3 point concept even back then so I don't know what to say and oh about how obvious the logos are similar I took this photo

http://i42.tinypic.com/59sahk.png

you don't even know what you're talking about. that's NOT the same HMR group that this discussion refers to.

i suggest re-reading the first post in this thread.

[baseface]

who gives a crap?!?!?!
does this affect you directly? no.
good god, just let it go.

[pwnst*r]

who gives a crap?!?!?!
does this affect you directly? no.
good god, just let it go.

good who?

[Giant Speck]

http://www.smallbusinesshq.com.au/images/profile/6451.jpg
http://www.eworldrecyclers.com/images/logo/logo%20new/hmr.gif
this is there old logo lol still using the 3 point concept even back then so I don't know what to say and oh about how obvious the logos are similar I took this photo

http://i42.tinypic.com/59sahk.png

The logo you posted above is from a company known as HMR Group which is based in the United States. It is in no way affiliated or related to the HMR Group (which is based in the United Kingdom) in any way, shape, or form.

[Tipped OuT]

The logo you posted above is from a company known as HMR Group which is based in the United States. It is in no way affiliated or related to the HMR Group (which is based in the United Kingdom) in any way, shape, or form.

You sound like a copyright disclaimer. :lolflag:

[dmizer]

I am leaving this closed.


According to this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7282986&postcount=23), Canonical is already aware of the issue and is addressing it.
Since Canonical is the copyright holder for the logo, they are the ones best equipped to handle the issue legally.
Debating this here does nothing to solve the problem, if it even is a problem.
Debating this here is probably aggravating the issue.


Remember that this happens more frequently than you might think: http://www.logodesignlove.com/similar-original-logos

Thank you.