User:Moswento/Merriam-Webster Inc. v. Random House Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merriam-Webster Inc. v. Random House Inc., No. 91-Civ-1221, was a legal case involving the publishers Merriam-Webster and Random House.

Background[edit]

  • Dictionaries
    • Two respected desk dictionaries - The Random House College Dictionary
    • Announcement of name change in January 1991[1]
    • Random House Webster's College Dictionary
    • Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
  • Use of Webster's name
    • Done in response to market research[1]
    • 19th-century lexicographer Noah Webster
    • Public domain [1]
  • Previous litigation
    • Merriam-Webster's "predecessor company" bought the rights to Webster's dictionary in 1843, when Webster himself died[1]
    • Previously filed a lawsuit against Cornucopia Software, a software company based in California, which published a piece of spellchecker software entitled "Electric Webster", the cover of which featured a "bull's eye" design similar to that found on the covers of Merriam-Webster's dictionaries[1]

Litigation[edit]

  • Lawsuit
    • Filed by Merriam-Webster in February 1991[1]
    • Claim that it confused consumers[1]
  • Trial
    • Trial lasted one month[1]
    • Expert testimony about public understanding of the words "Webster's" and "College"/"Collegiate"[1]
    • Also about principles of dictionary compilation - Kenneth Kister, an expert witness for the prosecution, argued that the Random House dictionary did not follow Websterian principles of lexicography, namely the listing of definitions in order of chronology rather than frequency, and the inclusion of a word's etymology at the beginning of an entry[1]
  • Decision
    • Made on October 22 1991[1]
    • Infringement of "trade dress"
    • M-W awarded $1,774,713 (lost profits) and $500,000 (punitive damages)[1]
    • Injunction issued - must change cover and title page[1] in case cited in title
    • However, could keep title[1] on condition that they included "Random House" in the same font, size and color on the book's cover[1]
    • They could also continue publishing their dictionary with a red cover, a decision they reached in November 1991
      • Lile Deinard, a lawyer for Merriam-Webster, argued that the color formed part of their "trade dress", and that Random House changed their cover to a brighter red in order to copy M-W's covers, but acknowledged that the judge's order did not include the color[1]
  • Later decision
    • 8 November - Judge Lawrence McKenna upheld the punitive damages, and ruled that they be doubled due to the behaviour of the defendant[1]

Other sources[edit]


References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q DeBenedictis, Don J. (January 1992). "Dictionary Trademark Wars". ABA Journal: 25. ISSN 0747-0088.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moswento/Merriam-Webster_Inc._v._Random_House_Inc.&oldid=1168386525"