From: stig@hackvan.com (Stig)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 18:59:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
In-Reply-To: <199607170040.UAA13512@alpha.pair.com>
Message-ID: <m0ugN8o-000HEEC@JATO.hackvan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:48:23 +0200 (MET DST)
>  From: Alex de Joode <usura@replay.com>
>  To: cypherpunks@toad.com
>  Subject: Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
>  Newsgroups: list.cypherpunks
> 
> [..]
>  : "Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash.  It is registered
>  : with the Benelux trademark office and the United States
>  : trademark office.  I believe that it is considered unwise to use
>  : minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an
>  : intellectual property rights lawyer.
>  
>  The Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) trademark laws
>  don't allow for slight variations, certainly not if there is a
>  change that people get confused, it is very very likey that the
>  judges of the benelux trademark court will decide that
>  ecash and e-cash are just to simular, and will thus confuse the
>  public. (art 5 lid 1 BMW)
>  
>  btw: I'm surprised DigiCash didn't file for a European Trademark,
>  but opted for Benelux and US protection.

Perhaps this has already been voiced on the main list (I get a filtered
helping or two of cypherpunks), but *I'm* surprised that such a generic name
as 'Ecash' was granted trademark status anywhere.

It's like giving Microsoft a trademark on the term 'Email'...  It's nuts!
Was the term ecash not in use before DigiCash showed up on the scene? 

    Stig