Subject: Re: Bake-off as trademark

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:22:50 GMT

*> From [email-masked] Mon Nov  6 12:51:57 2000
  *> Sender: [email-masked]
  *> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:14:45 -0500
  *> From: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
  *> Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Columbia University
  *> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
  *> X-Accept-Language: en
  *> MIME-Version: 1.0
  *> To: [email-masked]
  *> Subject: Bake-off as trademark
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> X-Loop: [email-masked]
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> X-Lines: 10
  *> 
  *> I've been approached regarding the use of the (claimed-to-be)
  *> trademarked term bake-off. It would be helpful if somebody can provide
  *> credible evidence that this term has been used within the technical
  *> community for many years. (In case you didn't know,
  *> http://www.bakeoff.com/ shows the non-technical use....)
  *> 
  *> Thank you.
  *> -- 
  *> Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
  *> 
  *> 

Henning,

Please see RFC 1025 from Sept 1987, or IEN 160 (online at
the RFC Editor web site) for a November 1980 bake off.
Is this 20 years ago early enough?

Bob Braden

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:38:20 -0500

>Is this 20 years ago early enough?

Since the first Pillsbury Bake-Off was 50 years ago, no.  But what's the 
issue?  Is Pillsbury telling us cease and desist?

---

From: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:57:40 -0500

> issue?  Is Pillsbury telling us cease and desist?

Pillsbury sent Columbia University a cease-and-desist letter, indeed,
presumably because of http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/bakeoff

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 22:34:18 -0500

> presumably because of http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/bakeoff

maybe we should organize a boycott of Pillsbury then.  it would be 
worth it just for the symbol - a dough-boy with a red circle-slash 
through him.

let's stamp out intellectual property lawyers in our lifetime.

Keith

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:01:07 -0500

Scott Brim wrote:

> Since the first Pillsbury Bake-Off was 50 years ago, no.

Well, but if they've failed to defend their trademark for 20 years, maybe
they've lost it.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Any sufficiently rigged demo is              |
[email-masked]|indistinguishable from advanced technology.  |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:56:25 -0800

OK, we have now reached >20 messages from armchair lawyers on 
trademark law. Given the earlier threads this year from armchair 
lawyers on patents, that leaves us just two months for us to have a 
ponderous thread on trade secrets, and we will have covered the main 
parts of intellectual property law.

For 2001, I propose that we have at least one long thread with our 
expert opinions on international law, given that the IETF is a global 
community.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium