It's always puzzled me, but how come Mozilla never faced a massive copyright lawsuit for using the name "Firefox" for their browser, which is the name of two Craig Thomas novels? I've looked on Google, but it seems like the whole world completely overlooked it and let Mozilla annihilate copyright laws with absolutely no comeback at all.

Hard to go buy a Firefox browser thinking it was the movie, book, other thing.

I have an app on my phone that's just called "People." How does the creator not get sued by People Magazine? How does Apple not get sued for Time Machine? How does Microsoft avoid being sued by the members of the band called "Excel?" How does- well, you get the idea.

Also:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2294631.Chrome

https://www.amazon.com/Safari-Robert-Bateman/dp/0316082651/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467758837&sr=1-12&keywords=safari

It would seem that no browser is safe...except maybe Internet Explorer.

"People" and "excel" as words on their own aren't words you can copyright, because they're in the dictionary, but "Firefox" was made up by Craig Thomas as the name of a Sci-Fi plane.

I'd assume the author or his publisher never filed suit. Not everyone is sue happy.

Actually, I always think of the plane when people say the name of the browser.

Why should "Firefox" be a copyrighted word? After all, I hear that it is the name of the Red Panda in one Asian language (forgetting what it is, though). I see plenty of books and movies that have similar names, but it doesn't mean that they were "stolen". Some people just happen to have the same ideas. Not everything is nefarious.

Also, never heard of those novels or that author, so I don't even know how many people would really realize they have the same names (the novel and the web browser).

I know, but that wasn't my point. If the party that coined the word isn't worried about the ambiguity or it being used to damage sales or reputation of their product, it's not being used by the other party to deliberately attempt to (mis)represent the same IP, etc., then it's only sort of copyright infringement. Even if it's a "made up" word, a court is usually still going to require that the plaintiff make a case that the use of the word is somehow damaging to their interests. It happens a heck of a lot. If every instance of it became a law suit, it would keep the courts very busy.

The novel was also made into a film starring Clint Eastwood in the '80s, which is possibly more well-known than the novel. I remember seeing it as a kid. I'm old.

Firefox is the name of a Cold War novel about a Soviet stealth warplane capable of over mach 5, published in 1977:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(novel)

It was also the name of the 1982 film based on the novel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film)

and arcade game based on the film:

http://www.arcade-museum.com/game_detail.php?game_id=7815

Well, what about "fire fox"? Is that copyrighted? Or are other people with no knowledge of this book, movie, and game not allowed to use something that sounds pretty cool? I really, REALLY doubt that outright copyright infringement and/or name theft is what happened when Mozilla made their web browser. Seriously, look at their logo: it is a fiery looking, stylized fox.

If you leave a gap between the words that doesn't infringe copyright. But Mozilla broke copyright by using the exact same word.

A quick Google search shows that titles cannot be copyrighted. Only trademarked. Again, assuming a trademark was actually aquired for the books title, the author or publisher would need to file a suit.

This one is kind of funny, in that the consulting company likely has web searches for their name buried under info about the game (that was made after the consulting company had the name):

http://www.minecraft.com/history

Like I said (and greg y above), it's only sort of an issue unless the owner of the name makes it an issue, and even then most courts will require that they show evidence that the use of the name is somehow damaging to them.

If the author and/or publishers don't care, then there is no infringement to worry about.


Especially since a web browser being named Firefox isn't going to confuse people when they are trying to buy the book. There is no threat to the reputation or sales of the book, so the publishers don't have to worry about losing customers or the book being misrepresented.

If the world actually worked this way, where you couldn't name anything due to possible copyright or trademark violations if someone else already used it, then our world would be filled with things called "xXxSuperslayerzxXx" or "A book that you physically must read to discover that the main character does not get eaten by a dinosaur but does die in a firey wreck after pairing off with the female lead," because every simple word and combinations of words would have been used up already.

In this case, no violation has occured. Trademark laws arethere to protect consumers and manufacturers from scam artists, who will likely produce shoddy goods and steal money from the manufacturers by tricking customers into using the shoddy items. So, if I try to make an insurance company called "Allstate Insurance", the real one is going to try to sue the pants off of me. Even if I seperate it into "All State Insurance", due to the similarity of names and possible confusion of customers. If I write a sci-fi book called "Allstate Insurance", then the trademarking is unlikely to be an issue since consumers can clearly differentiate between an automotive insurance company and a sci-fi book (we hope).

Copyright laws are a different issue, as they protect unique ideas and concepts. Long story short, I can write a book titled "Harry Potter". So long as the book doesn't deal with magic, a wizard school, and/or the title character being associated with either in some manner or implied to be the real one as thought up by J. K. Rowling, there's little that can be legally done against me. Granted, it'd be a dike move for the fans, almost impossible for me to find a publisher, and likely end up in several lawsuits by either Rowling herself, her publisher, or Warner Bros. as a punitive measure (making me spend time and money defending myself, even if I'm almost guaranteed to win the case), and is therefore more trouble than it's worth.

Now, the same would be true if I created a web browser called "Harry Potter". However, if I used the Harry Potter's likeness as a mascot for "Harry Potter" the web browser, then I'd be in actual legal hot water since I am now violating copyright laws.

To come back to the point of this thread, Mozilla is not really in violation of any sort of copyright or trademark law. Firefox the Books and Movie is not a service (and therefore does not technically fall under the purview of trademark laws), and Firefox the Web Browser is clearly not using anything from the books aside from the name "Firefox", nor did Mozilla appear to intentionally name it Firefox in order to gain any traffic from the book or movie's popularity (as it's not using anything but the name, and was called "Phoenix" while under development), so any copyright claims are incredibly tenuous.

People have more or less addressed this, but AFAIK there are two issues with trademark protection.

The first is that there has to be a name collision in a similar field. For example, software that uses the same name, or vehicles that use the same name.

The second is that the company has to have the funds to field a full time legal team to deal with possible infringement. That kind of money is generally reserved for large companies, egregious situations where someone feels they have to protect their trademark despite the expense, or occasional situations involving overdeveloped egos.

Another reason that we sometimes see overzealous pursuit of trademark protection is that US law encourages, that is, requires, companies to fight infringement. If they don't, they risk losing right to the trademark. As always, there are murky areas so we occasionally see a company like Intel threaten or sue a yoga shop, which doesn't really make sense, but those types of situations are either just plain crazy or best left as mysterious thoughts in the minds of lawyers.

I'm not a lawyer, but in the past I've had to do some legal training due to working for big, paranoid companies. It's been a long time, and an actual lawyer would obviously provide a much better explanation.

This is the type of thing that http://www.groklaw.net/was great for in the past. They may have info on it if you're willing to browse their archives.

While others have already spoken about this particular case, I would like you point out that even if you haven't heard of something that has been copyrighted, using it is still infringing copyright. It is similar to saying to a policeman "but officer, I didn't know that murder was illegal!". A lack of knowledge is not an excuse.

I wonder how George Lucas ever had the belief that he could win a legal case against Universal for Battlestar Gallactica, claiming that they'd copied Star Wars? Looking at both franchises they're actually totally different. They don't share title names, character names, nor plots.

George Lucas had nothing to do with the suit. It was initiated by Twentieth Century Fox without his participation.

Good post, brings up a lot of interesting points. As long as the author of the original novel isn't trying to sue Mozilla, then it shouldn't be an issue. And I really don't think people are going to confuse the 1970s book with the web browser, either. That would just show low brain power, right?

Whatever. Same question regarding 20th Century Fox.

I'm not actually concerned about Firefox copyright, I'm just sick of Googling for the movie and constantly getting things to do with the browser, no matter how much I try to avoid it. It gets rather annoying, you know, especially seeing that Mozilla are using a word created by someone else for the name of their browser.

Sadly, I think that a rather modern item is going to be easier to search in Google than a book (that's not universally known) from the '70s. I'm sure if you searched at the library or on Amazon, then it would unambiguously pull up the book and movie, since you can't buy/rent a web browser.

https://www.google.ca/#q=firefox+movie

https://www.google.ca/#q=firefox+Craig+Thomas.

Am I missing something? (Not trying to be an ass!)

Your examples here show that it is HOW you input your search into Google that can make all the difference. Just typing 'Firefox" is likely to bring up the web browser. But if you make it clear you are looking for the novel or movie, then your chances skyrocket. I've had to add descriptor words to my searches in both Google and Amazon in order to find what I'm looking for.

They could advert any problems by renaming the browser Firefrog, which is a much better name anyway.

I admit I got that idea from Python's "20th Century Frog", which seems somewhat appropriate given some of the other shenanigans mentioned here.