Intel Corporation v. Americas News Intel Publishing LLC

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Ronald Coleman

"Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having 'intel' in their name somewhere... Intel's lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all.

"Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of "intel" as short for "intelligence." It's common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply "intel." The owners of the site explained this to Intel, and in return were given a boilerplate explanation about trademark law, insisting that since Intel's trademark is so valuable, it still has to stop others from using it ...

"More importantly, no one is going to look at and confuse it for the world's largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can't order a Centrino processor. There's simply no confusion at all... [A]fter more than two years of this back and forth, Intel sued Mexico Watch, even though it's not even close to competitive and any "moron in a hurry" (as the popular trademark test notes) would clearly know the difference between a site about Mexican politics and a company selling microprocessors."

Mexico Watch's first motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. Intel went ahead and filed an amended complaint, only slightly different from the first. The court found that the allegations in the new complaint, however, met all the standards for stating a claim and denied the motion, reasoning, in part, that "the Court cannot, at this stage in the litigation, d etermine with certainty how ANIP is using the term 'intel.'"

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info: Decision | Federal, 9th Circuit, California | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ronald Coleman, Dhillon Law Group, Inc | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ronald Coleman

Dhillon Law Group, Inc on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.