[linux-elitists] BurnAllRedHat?

M. Drew Streib dtype@dtype.org
Thu Dec 13 11:20:00 PST 2001

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:08:21PM -0000, Rusty Foster wrote:
> They even claim restrictions on "phrases that are like Red Hat[R]."
> "Some examples of prohibited uses include, but are not limited to,
> "Red Cap" Linux, "Sombrero Rojo" ("Red Hat" translated into Spanish)
> Linux, "Redd Hatte" Linux, "RH" Linux, and "Green Hat" Linux."
> So how far does the law actually say they can take this? If I call my

The standard is known as "likelihood of confusion". The derivation of the
standard comes from the case of 
In re: E.l. DuPont Denmours & Co, 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973)

Summary by Nolo:
The most important "confusion factors" are generally the similarity of the
marks, similarity of the goods, degree of care exercised by the consumer
when purchasing, the intent of the person using the similar mark, and
any actual confusion that has occurred.

Hope this helps. The case above can be found online pretty easily for


M. Drew Streib <dtype@dtype.org>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org)
co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl.
creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other, see freedom/law
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20011213/b9050902/attachment.pgp 

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list