On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:08:32PM -0500, Matt Wilson wrote: > > Right, but - let's say that Burger King acquired McDonald's fryers, > > oil, fries, seasonings, etc - all from legitimate suppliers, lets say > > from the same suppliers that provide McDonald's with their supplies. > > Even though the fries would be exactly the same as McDonald's fries, > > they can not call them McDonald's fries. > > But you would be able to say "exactly the same as McDonald's fries", in > cases where that's true. Likewise, saying "based on Red Hat Linux", or > "contains the Red Hat Linux distribution" seems like fair game, yeah? It does to me, but read the guidelines: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page7.html Q: Janet decides to brand her product "Smith Linux." On her product packaging, she prints "Smith Linux" in the upper left corner in a large typeface. In the middle of the product, she prints in a smaller typeface "Contains Red Hat Linux 7.2." Is this acceptable? A: No. Such use of "Red Hat Linux" violates the guidelines regarding Red Hat's trademarks and is likely to cause confusion in the market. Additionally, Matt has said she cannot install it for clients (for a commercial fee), provide support and call it 'Red Hat Linux." -- Please, reply only to the list.
