Design firm sues Microsoft over Bing trademark A small graphic design firm that uses "Bing!" for its branding is suing Microsoft for using the same word for the name of its search engine. Missouri-based Bing! Information Design filed a case in St. Louis circuit court on Tuesday, arguing the software giant's aggressive advertising of Bing search has "gutted" its efforts to …
I thought the usual trick was to claim that X was trading off the good name of Y with X in this case being Microsoft? Otherwise I fail to see any reason why they'd even have a potential for a lawsuit especially due to the lack of trademarks.
Ah well - looks like the lawyers will win out, this bunch of wannabes will go bankrupt and normality will return to the interwaves once more. Wouldn't be so bad if they were even a half decent design company based on their portfolio.
it's obvious that we are running out of words, especially if large companies want to own more than one each (Windows, Word, etc).
What we need is to triple the number of glyphs in the alphabet. Similar phonics, just three different ways of drawing each of them. The existing ones would be pronounced in our normal voice, one of the new set in basso profundo, and the other in falsetto.
You see, in the present alphabet Bing sounds the same as Bing, even though the first one was squeaked in a barry gibbs manner.
Then companies could use the squeaky ones for trivial products appealing to mall bunnies and the deep, resonant ones for really serious things like mainframe app generators
Can I copyright this idea?
Pub I use is run by a Vietnamese family. Their communication with each other sounds like someone's going after the other with a meat cleaver.
Example: Your first paragraph, using translate.google.fi looks like:
nó hiển nhiên là chúng tôi đang chạy ra các từ, đặc biệt là nếu công ty lớn muốn sở hữu nhiều hơn một mỗi (Windows, Word, vv)
So, it's been done already...Prior art. Very prior.
If you dont trademark it, its just a word.
Really, its your company name? And you didnt think once of protecting it? Hmmm...
I suppose waiting this long for Bing to become established is just cooincedence, not waiting to see how big (High profile) it will be whilst rubbing your hand together at the thought of your pay out?
The sad thing is MS will probably pay out just to make this go away, thats why things like this will keep happening.
Im off to register bong! Boing! BinkyPlinkPlonky! and FLAARP just incase some one decides to set up a high profile service in one of those names in the next few years.
You might find this high-profile case from 2003 interesting:
W. W. F. World Wildlife Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) and World Wildlife Fund Inc vs. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc.
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/wwf%20v%20wwf.htm
This was a non-profit animal-rights organisation pitted against the world's biggest wrestling conglomerate. The non-profit won the case.
IMHO they fail on the TM side because for Trademark infringement you have to show that the products are similar enough to be confused. Bing the search engine vs Bing the consulting company? Not close.
Lindows the OS vs Windows the OS? possibly.
Nexus vs Lexus as car brands? possible.
McDonalds vs McDougals for Cheeseburger Joints? Sure.
Nexus 1 vs Nexus-6? Not likely to succeed.
IMHO, but then again, IANAL so who knows...
... when it was a manufacturer of fizzy drinks in the 1950s/60s when I was a youngster in south-east Kent.
Now if they'd kept going until now, they could have made some money out of Microsoft for stealing the froth!
(Having just Googled before posting, it seems that other people have already had this idea! http://ezinearticles.com/?Was--A-Fizzy-Drink-The-Inspiration-For-Microsofts-New-Search-Engine?&id=2667740 )
...and if it wasn't for the wonky concept that seems to be underlying the suit, now, I might've thought it would make for an interesting lawsuit.
I don't like Microsoft - frankly, I rank 'em with Scientology and ... let's say, some other things in that general area ... when it comes to presuppositions of intellectual climate. Trying to pin evil intention or "evil motive" in a court of law, though? That's just funny.
On the other hand - if there are any other hands left, in this case - I'd like to think that Bing! Information Design would have some rights to litigate about, in regards to "prior art" and so-on - nothing to say of accusing the USPTO of favoritism, if they could find a justifiable case for that. Keeping it simple, though, I wish the lawyers would've kept it simpler, for this lawsuit, without the dramatic parlor tricks (as related in this fine upstanding article from The Reg)
Disclaimer, granted: I'm not a legal expert about trademark law. Like, duuuuuuh...
Not unexpected from MS, steam-roll over the little guy because you want to do whatever you please.
Of course MS didn't try to milk the word for any prior value, they just totally ignored the fact that someone else was using it as a trademark even if they foolishly did so without registering it.
Because of this latter factor, if the solution isn't for MS to concede rights to it, then neither should be allowed to use it as a trademark.
I sympathise with the plaintiff. I tend to side with the underdog. This is a small company in a dispute with a big company.
But this lawsuit can't be taken seriously. It's only become newsworthy because the anti-MS networks carry stories like this so effectively.
Spot the difference:
“Bing search”
“Bing Information Design”
Of course, nobody would confuse a search engine called "Bing" with a small design company called "Bing Information Design". If this small company wanted to use the name "Bing" they could have trademarked that, but of course they did not. I notice that their portfolio includes web apps powered by Microsoft Virtual Earth, a service provided for free by MS, so they’re actually getting a pretty good deal from the company they’re suing. There are some good artists working at Bing Information Design, in fact some of their illustrations look intriguingly like Google recent logo designs.
I wonder who is sponsoring the plaintiff, or bankrolling the lawsuit -- the men in black from Google/Apple, perhaps? It's great PR for the small company, and great negative marketing for Microsoft's competitors. But this is type of gratuitous opportunistic law suit gives the legal system a bad name.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
