Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation

Hi :)

Even tho it is unenforceable i think it is good for us to state our wishes 
clearly like this to avoid situations where people set something up trying to be 
helpful but accidentally cause us problems.

If/when it becomes enforceable then it would be best practice for us to attempt 
to solve infractions by diplomacy first and diplomacy is still a valid option 
for us even this early.  We do have some excellent people who have the 
appropriate skills to handle this.

Also we can't have everything ready all at once.  Getting this part of the 
puzzle completed gives a solidity and gravitas to other parts of the puzzle as 
they fall into place.

Congrats and regards from
Tom :)





________________________________
From: Alexander Thurgood <alex.thurgood@gmail.com>
To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 15:14:21
Subject: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation

Le 28/01/11 13:48, Michael Meeks a écrit :

Hi,


>     Good point; 'business' is confusing, I switched it to company name to
> make it more comprehensible:
>
>     "Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name or company name without
>     explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited."


This will be virtually unenforcible. For it to be enforcible, you would
have to prove, at a minimun, that :

1) TDF has a trademark right in the country in question. AFAIK, TDF is
still very, very far from worldwide trademark coverage.

2)  The use of a word or sign containing LibreOffice prevents the
registration of a company name or a domain name in the territory where
the issue is raised. Of course, one can always go to UDRP for domain
names, which is cheaper than a court case on the whole, but it still
costs money and you have to show a demonstration of recognisable harm or
intent to confuse. In "honest Joe" good faith domain name registrations
such as those declared by amateur groups, or volunteers, or just
associations, that will be a particularly hard act to follow.

3) in each case, the trademark is valid.


The validity question in point 3 is an important one. The use of
"office" as part of a trademark to designate the actual or future goods
and products/services is not at all original with regard to productivity
software, and this part of the trademark is almost certainly devoid of
any protection. In the US, if the trademark LibreOffice has been filed,
the trademark office may require specific disclaiming of the "office"
part of the mark.

A quick search of the USPTO database in international class 9 (covering
computer programs and software) gives at least the following results :

- LIBREACCESS
- LIBREPUBLISH
- LIBREMARKET
- LIBRE DESIGN ("Design" is specifically disclaimed)
- LIBRESTREAM
- LIBREDIGITAL


I won't even bother to go near the "OFFICE" ones, well maybe this one,
because it is kind of ironic :

- FREEOFFICE (owned by Softmaker Software GmbH, who happen to
commercialize, in Europe at least, an office suite by the name of
Softmaker Office) - that should be interesting when either the Examiners
or the attorneys wake up.


Alex




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***



      
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***