Lindows has announced that it will change the name of its software product LINDOWS to LINSPIRE.  The announcement makes no mention of a settlement of the worldwide dispute with Microsoft and in fact suggests that the trial will go forward.  Microsoft has prevailed in several non-US jurisdictions.  Coverage here.

An aside: this dispute illustrates the somewhat obvious point about the global nature of the software marketplace.  Lindows’ hopes of prevailing in the U.S. litigation rests on its ability to establish whether, when MS adopted the WINDOWS trademark in the 80’s, was ‘windows’ a generic term for windowing software (regardless of whether WINDOWS has since become one of the most famous trademarks in the world).  However, the law and the history of industry terminology in other critical markets differ, and the conflict can be framed simply in some jurisidictions as WINDOWS OS vs LINDOWS OS.

A further aside: When I typed LINDOWS into Google, it asks “Did you mean ‘windows’?

Less work for trademark lawyers.  The absence of effective web directories/navigational tools during the mid to late 90’s forced people to use the domain name system as a directory.  As owning XYZ.COM functioned in certain ways as having a trademark registration for XYZ in all classes in all countries, the absence of good search tools exacerbated cyber-squatting and reverse-high jacking.  Trademark owners happily co-existing in the real world were pitted against each other.  Simultaneously, for all the talk of DNS expansion, the DNS was poorly serving local business (background here).

The growing precision of search tools increases the ability of a business to make itself known without ownng the best ‘.com’ version of its name.  The trend towards smarter search was apparent this week with the announcement of Google’s local search and Amazon’s A9 personalized search, on the heels of the recent debut of Yahoo’s SmartView Regional Search.  At some point, the Internet will have the same level of excitement for trademark lawyers as do yellow page directories.

Much is made of the global nature of the Internet, but wasn’t it Tip O’Neil who said “All searching is local?”

Interesting First Circuit Case re good faith adoption.  Defendant knew that plaintiff continued to use mark abroad, but alleged that it had abandoned rights in the U.S. First Cicuit holds for defendant, citing Persons case (900 F.2d 1565 (Fed Cir 1990) for proposition that “knowledge of a foreign use does not preclude good faith adoption in the U.S.”  Of course this proposition must be read in light of the recent 2d Cir COHIBA case, which limits the rule with regard to famous marks, and the 4th Cir. Casino de Monte Carlo case with regard to what constitutes use in the U.S.

General Healthcare v. Qeshat, Kent International Products, No. 03-1968 (1st Cir Apirl 13, 2004)