German Company Wants To Protect Its Use Of The '@' Sign: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
from the @hats-and-@fish dept
A little while back, Techdirt wrote about a rather brave French company that tried to trademark the Anonymous logo. Now Der Spiegel is reporting that someone wants a German "wordmark" on the "@" sign (original in German). The company involved has the rather unusual name "@ T.E.L.L.", where the initials apparently stand for "Tradinghouse for Exclusive Luxury Labels". Although it's not really clear what the connection is, it is seeking to protect its use of the @-symbol for various classes of luxury goods (application in German), including the following:
shoes, hats, belts, fish, dried fruit, eggs, milk, coffee, tea, tapioca, bread, sugar, honey, syrups, alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), cigarettes, cigars, cigarette lighters and ashtrays
Despite this limitation to certain luxury items, and despite a press release (pdf in German) emphasizing that the company has no intention of sending out warning letters to people using the @-sign in their email addresses, you do have to wonder how wise it is to hand out control, no matter how circumscribed, over something so fundamental to the working of the modern world.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+






Reader Comments (rss)
Banning Twitter in Germany now?
Expect a C&D letter shortly.
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Banning Twitter in Germany now?
Expect a C&D letter shortly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
wold be a trademark violation in Germany?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Luxury Basics
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Luxury Basics
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://notinventedhe.re/on/2012-6-13
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Luxury Basics
And fish? Luxury @fish? WTH?
Today's Menu
@fish and @chips, @fries, and a side of @unbelievable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
And you can trust them implicitly. Because nobody ever abuses IP. Especially not the Germans!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
FTFT
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
First, @-H.O.L.E. is sufficiently close to my trademark on A-Whole Goods & Services.
Second, that @ symbol you are using has Apple's patented rounded corners.
Boy are you in trouble!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fun (and not really relevant) Fact
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What could go wrong if I did that ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Words
Taking a single char of a name up for trademark is very extreme and should under no circumstances be granted. However, there is a place for trademarked names. The difference between those two situations is pretty much a grey area. Is it enough with 2 chars to achieve a trademark?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I might as well trademark all 26 letters of the Alphabet and sue all public schools and parents for teaching them without my permission.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fun (and not really relevant) Fact
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment