Bing! Suing Microsoft for Copyright Infringement.

[morestar]

So if I'm correct in my knowledge of copyright laws this could mean the end of Bing from Microsoft.

Apparently there is a company St. Louis U.S.A. (Ars Technica) that has been using the trademark 'Bing' for over ten years.

You can read the press release on this issue to find out more.

If anyone knows the ins and outs of copyright laws, tell me, will this lawsuit fly? Is Microsoft's Bing dead?

I'd like to know!

[sofakingdabest1]

Usually the same names in 2 different types of industry is not copyright infringe. St. Louis Bing is design, MS Bing is search. It's a shakedown. MS is a deep pocket. MS will settle. Pay a license fee. "Bing bing bing. Ricochet Rabbit."

Also. Do ya see the irony here? Did MS Bing do a "search" of that name during their planning stages? Doh!

[Clarrie]

Usually the same names in 2 different types of industry is not copyright infringe. St. Louis Bing is design, MS Bing is search. It's a shakedown. MS is a deep pocket. MS will settle. Pay a license fee. "Bing bing bing. Ricochet Rabbit."

Also. Do ya see the irony here? Did MS Bing do a "search" of that name during their planning stages? Doh!

Using it for 10 years eh? "Bing! Information Design is an Internet-related company that creates interactive and computer-related illustrations, designs, interactive graphics, animations, technical diagrams and related services"?

So, I'm a bit puzzled by the website link from the press release ... www bing biz - domain registered in November, contact details in Madeira, all crawler access blocked by robots.txt ...

If they were an "Internet related company", would have thought they would have been a bit quicker to get their website launched?

Trademark application in May 2009 ...

All sounds like a bit of legal opportunism to me.

[deepsand]

There are presently 105 USPTO live filings for "bing," most of which pre-date those of either of the litigants under discussion.


Bing! Information Design LLC filed for "Bing!" on May 26, 2009, as both a Trademark And a Service Mark, Serial No. 77744847, for use relating to

"IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Illustrations; Printed visuals in the nature of information graphics, charts, maps; Stories in illustrated form."

and

"IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Advertising agencies, namely, promoting the goods and services of others; Advertising and promoting the goods and services of a visual artist; Advertising particularly services for the promotion of goods; Advertising services, namely, creating corporate and brand identity for others; Advertising services, namely, creating corporate logos for others; Advertising services, namely, production of special effects including model-making services, computer-generated imagery and computer-generated graphics for the production of commercials; Advertising via electronic media and specifically the internet; Design of advertising flyers for others; Design of advertising materials for others; Design of internet advertising; Providing advertising services using 3D and animation designs."


Microsoft Corp. filed twice on March 2, 2009, Serial Nos. 77681498 & 77681512, for the Trademark "BING;" once for

"IC 039. US 100 105. G & S: providing a web site and web site links to geographic information, map images, and trip routing"

and, also for

"IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer search engine software; graphical user interface software, namely, toolbar software for use with search engine software and websites

IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: advertising services; dissemination of advertising for others via the Internet; providing consumer product information via the Internet; advertising and directory services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others by providing a website featuring links to the websites of others; providing online directory services featuring business and personal directory information; providing an Internet website featuring news and information in the fields of national and international politics and business

IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: telecommunication services, namely, receipt and delivery of information, messages, documents, images and other data by electronic transmission; streaming of audio and video on the Internet

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: education, namely, providing training and tutorials in the field of computer searching and online advertising; entertainment services, in the nature of providing online news and information in the fields of entertainment, education, pop culture, cultural activities and exhibitions, sports, and other non-business and non-commercial fields, namely, games, music, literature, the arts, television, films and performance art

IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: computer services, namely, providing search engines for obtaining data on a global computer network."


Bing! Information Design's claim rests solely on its first having used "bing" in commerce on April 1, 2000; however, such first usage alone is not sufficient to support their claim.

Given that they did not enter the on-line arena until last month, and as, by their own filing, their services are quite unlikely to be to confused with those of Microsoft, their claim is little more than a lawyer's pipe dream.

There is no reason for Microsoft to here settle.

[bmontecastro]

whew..can someone explain me what is going on between this two?

[morestar]

Usually the same names in 2 different types of industry is not copyright infringe. St. Louis Bing is design, MS Bing is search. It's a shakedown. MS is a deep pocket. MS will settle. Pay a license fee. "Bing bing bing. Ricochet Rabbit."

Also. Do ya see the irony here? Did MS Bing do a "search" of that name during their planning stages? Doh!

So what you are saying is I can start manufacturing and selling Google Running Shoes?

[morestar]

Bing! Information Design's claim rests solely on its first having used "bing" in commerce on April 1, 2000; however, such first usage alone is not sufficient to support their claim.

Given that they did not enter the on-line arena until last month, and as, by their own filing, their services are quite unlikely to be to confused with those of Microsoft, their claim is little more than a lawyer's pipe dream.

There is no reason for Microsoft to here settle.

Thank you deepsand...as usual you've got some great answers and insights.

[deepsand]

ha ha ha it looks like brother in arms...what is it Corporate surprises never ends

Who are here "brothers in arms?"

And, what about this matter comes as a surprise?

[morestar]

I think he means (re:surprise) that everywhere he looks people are suing people...left right and center.

But the brother in arms, I have no clue...

[deepsand]

whew..can someone explain me what is going on between this two?

Short answer - Some lawyer saw the chance to make some money by convincing another that he stood a good chance of getting some big bucks from Microsoft if he sued them for their simply having used the same word as they did.

BTW, I own the character string "deepsand;" use it at your own peril.