So more then likely expect this to be taken down in the next few weeks.
I would expect a C&D from a lawyer company any day now, and more then likely they will ask for the domain as well. Since ACPA will classify this as "cyber squatting" since you are charging for the product.
You're also reverse engineering which is a gray zone as it is AND charging for the result.
So I wouldn't be surprised if instead of a C&D they just went straight to lawsuit.
I suspect the "reverse engineering" here was just looking at Bluetooth LE GATT attributes and values, which you can just look at using something like Bluetility [1]. There appears to be some exemptions to DMCA for compatibility so long as the author didn't copy Bose' code, but IANAL. [2]
The name I think is the more challenging part because it's very close - probably a C&D if it becomes popular to change the name.
[1] https://github.com/jnross/Bluetility
[2] https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
You need to defend your trademarks otherwise courts will render them moot.
Sort of.
You need to prevent your trademark from becoming generic.
You also need to go after infringers in a reasonable amount of time, or you may lose the ability to collect monetary damages from that particular infringer at a later time (laches); however, progressive encroachment mitigates this to some extent (if you ignore a minor infringement, you can still sue if the infringement substantially expands, overriding the laches defense).
There's no requirement that you defend every case of trademark infringement, that's just overzealous lawyers who like to get paid a lot of money for sending threatening letters.
In this case Bose could ignore Boze and it wouldn't cause any issues. If Boze later expanded their business in a way that would increase the threat to the Bose trademark (for example, launching their own branded headphones, or directly competing with a Boze iOS app) then Bose could sue at that time under the progressive encroachment doctrine.
All that said,
> In this case it would be completely normal and legitimate for Bose to sue.
is completely correct.
Calling it anything else would be fine.
But the OP clearly doesn't have much of a background or worry for this, likely due to inexperience, age or just doesn't care. If they don't care, all the power to them - but I think they should be worried because litigation sucks for anyone.
The "consumer confusion" headlines and legal filings would be works of art.
> "and operated for months"
This seems IANAL to be, reverse engineering aside, to be more about trademark. I agree with the other comments that cease and desist now is the best path to hopefully avoid expensive legal bills.
https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/port-saint-lucie/profile/accountin...
Of course, they're not in software or hardware, so your point stands.
Good chance Bose will be aware of the bad publicity it would create to be too aggressive about this, it just would make them look bad for not providing such a thing in the first place. They have to defend their trademark, yeah, but unless this is actually a well known product, they aren't at risk of it being genericized.
They reverse engineer a protocol, built an app for it, bought a domain with a single character (s -> z) difference (cyber-squatting) and are charging for it.
And it isn't a "clear violation of trademark law" either, almost nothing is clear in trademark law until a court makes a ruling.
Regardless, fine, big corporations will do what big corporations will do. I don't think the Bozeapp guy is risking anything other than having to change the name, or possibly pull the app. Big deal. "Hope you hire lawyers" is an extreme comment.
I wish more of us in communities like this would cheer on the little guy, rather than jumping to the defense of big litigious companies (before they have even acted). Reverse engineering a protocol, because the big company didn't bother accommodating your device, seems well within the spirit of a forum called "Hacker News." To me, reverse engineering a protocol so you can add functionality is no different from what hot rodders have done to their automobile engines for a century. You're figuring out how it works so you can make it work more to your liking.
(and yes, in my opinion it is totally a David and Goliath situation)
None of these things are crimes.
Perhaps, but no one is talking about criminal charges. Torts, like the trademark violation here, are still illegal and a basis for legal consequences, you just don’t get prison, death, or other uniquely-criminal penalties for them.
Someone at Bose may also be interested in this kind of development.
They can even redirect the old domain to the new one for a while. A company like Bose is not going to punish a mistake that was corrected in good faith in a timely manner.
But still, using the name Boze is cease and desist magnet.
Makes me wonder how much work OP did, did he just wrap the CLI around an Electron UI?
[1] https://twitter.com/DannyAziz97/status/1389481926113775616 [2] https://dentonliu.com/projects.html
So agreeing with everyone, go with a different name. Also selfishly, try and figure out a way to do this with non-Bose headphones and add it.
I keep it connected to my Pixel 5 and a Pi running OSMC attached to a TV and can pretty seamlessly switch between the devices by playing media on whichever device I want to hear.
A smarter idea would be to send a cease and desist. Maybe before that, a nice email to start with. "Hey, we like what you're doing, but unfortunately you'll have to change the name."
I am not sure anymore. With twitter and cancel culture around? I can't imagine the legal fees and terrible optics would NOT be worth this. Maybe if this person was Sony with deep pockets. But there is no reason for Bose to chase some app that makes $50 a month.
I doubt it would come to a lawsuit though unless the developer resisted. More than likely Bose will send a C&D and the developer will comply. It's a fairly reasonable request in this case.
If it was free or open source you could argue you’re not profiting from it, but the way it’s presented..
You’re selling software with the likeness of a brand for the products sold by the brand.
Hope you’ve got a lawyer.
You’re probably lucky that they’re a research driven organisation given the founder donated majority shares for it to MIT with a mission lock clause which means it’s never going to be acquired by a tech giant or private equity. This is good because it means they don’t have for profit lawyers on staff to fuck over people like you. Nevertheless you’re still screwed.