RSSMicrosoft Sued Over 'Office Live' Name
By Ed Oswald | Published February 23, 2007, 12:29 PM
2:00 pm ET February 23, 2006 - BetaNews has received comments from both Microsoft and Office Live, LLC regarding the trademark suit.
Microsoft spokesperson Jack Evans told BetaNews that it felt that Office Live had no trademark on the name, and it would seek to have its claims invalidated in “its common connotation."
“We told Office Live LLC as much when the first contacted us a year ago. We detailed other common uses of “live” as a descriptor, citing examples such as “AOL Live,” “Vodaphone Live,” “XBOX Live,” and “WTP Live.,” he said.
“Clearly, if anyone is seeking to gain from the name of another company’s products, it’s the plaintiffs in this case. Microsoft Office has been in the marketplace substantially longer than any of plaintiffs’ product offerings,” Evans continued.
However, Office Live, LLC sees it quite differently. Company spokesperson John Gorman said that the term has been in use since the inception of the company’s website in February 2001. It informed Microsoft of the infringement in February 2006.
He also repudiated Microsoft’s claims that Live was merely a discriptor: “The USPTO examiner considered and rejected the position that the mark is merely ‘descriptive’ and concluded that it was entitled to protection,” Gorman pointed out.
Both sides declined to discuss the nature of settlement proceedings due to a confidentiality agreement, although Gorman described the offers as “quite far apart.”
BetaNews will continue to follow this story, and update it as it develops.
Microsoft is again finding itself in legal hot water, this time over the use of the "Live" branding on its online office products.
A company called Office Live filed a trademark lawsuit against Microsoft on Friday, asking for an injunction to prevent the Redmond giant from using the mark on its suite of online office and web applications for businesses.
Office Live has held the trademark since 2002, according to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filings. A suit was filed back in December in a U.S. District Court in California, however it was put on hold pending the result of negotiations.
When talks broke down, the company decided to proceed with the suit. If successful, the action could cause Microsoft more headaches in what has increasingly become a difficult branding environment for its "Live" products.
Several Live products have been re-branded under the company's "MSN" mark, while others have been eliminated due to lack of interest from consumers, or duplication with preexisting Microsoft services.
Microsoft's argument to separate its own product from that of the company of the same name could be quite difficult.
Office Live's Web site describes the product as the following: "Office Live provides business to consumer portals that give consumers free access to quality professional content and advice while providing professional organizations with web-enabled virtual office and marketing services."
It could be argued that Microsoft Office Live does much of the same functions, strengthening the company's case for an injunction.
"It is shocking that Microsoft would have so little regard for another company's intellectual property rights that it would select a name belonging to another company," Office Live CEO Lenny Targon said in a statement.
A request for comment from Microsoft was outstanding as of press time.
Okay, if Office Live LLC has the .net domain name and MS has the .com domain name, theorectically that means microsoft was using the name BEFORE the other company. Easy as that! Lets check the whois on this...
Domain Name: officelive.com
Created on..............: Fri, Aug 22, 2003
Domain Name: OFFICELIVE.NET
Created on: 10-MAY-02
hm. I guess I was wrong. I dont get why that company wouldnt have purchased the .com one though. Unless they had sold it to MS earlier =/ intresting.
Score: 0
|There's a store called Vista blinds in Adelaide, SA, Australia, and I have heard people years ago calling something relating to their products 'Windows Vista'. They're not complaining about anything, and the company has nothing to do with software but it would be an interesting to see the outcome of a legal case if Microsoft decided to sue them...
Score: 0
|There are other words they could use instead of live, that could mean "not local" which is basicly what a "Live" show/application is right?
Score: 0
|I think they need to do away with the 'Live' completely. It's just too problem causing. Granted it's a VERY creative concept since the word has such a multitude of meanings, flavors, themes....but man, tom, d*** and harry are trying to sue.
Score: 0
|Lol, they don't even have the .com. Two guys in a basement make better websites than them. Obviously they are just trying to make a quick buck.
Score: 0
|Microsoft, pay the company for your mistake, and rebrand your software which will solve this problem.
They could of course just buy the company, since it would cost them about the same amount of money to advertise the name change and file the paperwork to protect the new choice.
Score: 0
|I think it would be rather funny if Microsoft tries to defend themselves by saying Office Live is too generic or uses generic words, which Windows happens to be...
Score: 0
|*sigh* Microsoft did not patent the word "Windows", but the product known as "Microsoft Windows". Donald trump did not patent the phrase "You're Fired!", but he patented the idea of using this phrase on a reality TV series.
Big difference...although I believe in this case that it may be a losing argument since Office Live 'appears' to be the same market as...well, Office Live :)
The reason I'm saying it's B.S. is because Microsoft doesn't OWE this company squat...
Score: 0
|Microsoft did try to trademark Windows, which initially was thrown out. The mark was granted later, but I believe that the Lindows case had that overturned as well.
http://www.usatoday.com/...2003-02-06-sinrod_x.htm
I can probably find more links, but that will set you on the right path.
If they are using their trademark, then yes they owe them something.
It's another case of Microsoft trying to get something they want for little.
Score: 0
|I laugh at that but i agree with it. Its so freakin true.
That other so called "company" seriously needs to do some heavy refining on there sub-mediocore website.
Score: 0
|A) Why have they waited so long to file the lawsuit? Office Live has been a Microsoft brand for over a year now.
B) What efforts has the Office Live company attempted to resolve this issue through direct communication with Microsoft? If none, why?
Score: 0
|They spent the last year unsuccessfully trying to get MSFT to pay them handsomely. Didn't work, so now that MSFT has spent some money on adverts and such, the small company has some real negotiation leverage.
Score: 0
|"They spent the last year unsuccessfully trying to get MSFT to pay them handsomely."
The American Dream: name your company something that Microsoft picks for it's new product before it happens, sue away, and come home a millionare and retire.
Lawsuits are supposed to be only for damages and actual monetary damages that can be proven to have occurred. If 'Office Live' makes this hole in the wall company lose business, then MS should pay for the amount of business they would/should have had. If not, it's baseless.
Unfortunately, in the past 50 years or so the US Judicial Branch has made the laws so inconsistent and wording so meaningless and intangible that the "monetary damages" issue described above can be easily overriden by activist judges and the media alike.
Certainly judges aren't the only guilty party--it is a combination of many issues--but our system is clearly encouraging litigation as a "get rich fast" scheme. Does anyone disagree with me at least on that specific issue?
"Both sides declined to discuss the nature of settlement proceedings due to a confidentiality agreement, although Gorman described the offers as “quite far apart.”
There we go--Office Live LLC wants to take a peice of Microsoft's money, so they demand a settlement or litigation. Frankly, I can't blame Microsoft for not accepting their offer, because I suspect it was a value based on Microsoft's prestige and not based on the fact that Company A infringed on Company B's patent.
If any other company in the world had the name taken, I guarantee you that this hole in the wall company wouldn't be asking for one eightieth the amount they asked Microsoft to pay them.
Makes me wonder--why don't people sue the Democratic or Republican party? Those guys have way more money than Microsoft, I guarantee it.
Score: 0
|Holy blindness bourgeoisdudeman! (heh)
"The American Dream: name your company something that Microsoft picks for it's new product before it happens"
How about the facts here!
"The Microsoft Initiative: name your product line something that is already in use, based on a lack of due diligence and then claim "too bad" you didn't need it anyway."
Talk about defending Goliath.
Score: 0
|Ok.. Look at their website. They don't deserve a dime.
Score: 0
|Exactly, and Apple did the same thing with their iPhone moniker: name first, negotiate later, and if needed, litigate until the next century.
Score: 0
|Regardless of how dodgy their website looks if they've been in existence since 2001 and doing a legit business then it's hardly trademark squatting. If MS doesn't want to pay then they should rebrand their product.
Score: 0
|If Cisco had a legal leg to stand on, they would NEVER had offered to delay the case TWICE. Apple didn't ask for a continuance or delay even once. The fact remains: Cisco allowed the trademark to expire. It was abandoned.
Score: 0
|