[steering-discuss] Approval of our Trademark Policy

Hello,

I'll answer everyone in one mail. Please bear on with me:
- changes Italo requested: done.

- changes Michael requested: I tried to clarify and add space in the
  Permitted use section, fixed the missing link, fixed the line break
  and other obvious things. As for the general contradiction between
  the Logo guidelines and the Trademark Policy itself, I inserted
  inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
  version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.
  It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the two.
  You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but
  that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, image
  marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different values. Of
  course the right and broad way to discuss them is by using and
  clarifying the notion of trademarks, but the trademark is not a logo
  only (and vice-versa). So I still think it's good to somewhat
  separate them.

- changes requested by Christoph: I added one sentence about the
  english version being the official one. As for usability, please go
  ahead :slight_smile: make sure people understand there's one page dedicated to
  the logos though.

Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one
more period of 24 hours now.

Best,
Charles.

Hi Charles, hi all!

- changes requested by Christoph: I added one sentence about the
  english version being the official one. As for usability, please go
  ahead :slight_smile: make sure people understand there's one page dedicated to
  the logos though.

Okay, I had a look (or two) on the pages ...

TRADEMARK POLICY

Fortunately, there seems to be sufficient protection, since I was unable
to edit the Trademark Policy wiki page. Thus, I've edited the content on
my user page that should be (if the changes are perceived as
improvements) copied to the real page. Charles, could you take care of
that, please?

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Temporary_Work_Space#The_Document_Foundation_Trademark_Policy

Changes:
      * Overall: Added some headings to improve the structure of the
        text and to ensure proper TOC creation by the wiki (although
        some changes might appear awkward)
      * Section "Related Information": Added this section (referring to
        Logo Policy, Branding Guidelines) and linked from within the
        text to this section.
      * Section "The Trademarks": Added list of the trademarks to ease
        the understandability --> By the way, the information is
        duplicated in "Purpose"; is that helpful?
      * Overall: Converted the text-only mail address into a "clickable"
        mail address
      * Overall: Changed "hard" formatting to a style that better fits
        to the wiki

LOGO POLICY

I've overhauled the logo policy, although the naming of some items seems
still to be strange (I'd like to have some shorter names like: TDF Logo,
Community Logo - or something like that).

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy

Major Changes:
      * Moved the content to a table
      * Changed the point-of-view from "we" to "TDF", and
        "they/external" to "other" --> Rationale: Most of the people
        will be part of the community, so it would be strange to tell
        them being "external". The "we" for TDF seemed a bit too
        self-centered ... although it is correct from our
        point-of-view :slight_smile:
      * Added "Usage Examples" --> Are these descriptions okay, are more
        important ones missing? I think these examples have great value
        in describing when to use, when to avoid the TDF subline logo.
      * Overall: Improved description of legal mailing list (now:
        "non-public")
      * Overall: Changed "hard" formatting to a style that better fits
        to the wiki

Since there have been major changes, could you please thoroughly check
whether the text still fits to your thoughts and our goals?

Thanks a lot!

Cheers,
Christoph

Hi,

Well which is it - is the community logo w/registered trademark, mark or
not? - it is both ways on the wiki page above - PNG w/out any mark, SVG
with 'registered trademark", while on the trademark policy page it seems
that maybe it is just a "tm" that is appropriate at this time.

Thanks so much, in advance

Drew Jensen

Hi Drew,

Well which is it - is the community logo w/registered trademark, mark or
not? - it is both ways on the wiki page above - PNG w/out any mark, SVG
with 'registered trademark", while on the trademark policy page it seems
that maybe it is just a "tm" that is appropriate at this time.

From a legal point of view, if the trademark is not actually registered
then it can only be "TM" - note here that "filed" is not the same as
registered. Considering that in the US registration takes anything from
12 months to 3 years on average, at least for the US it will have to be
"TM". It is, by the way, an offence to use (R) or registered trademark
in the US if the trademark is not actually registered.

As for other countries, well the European Union trademark registration
proceedings take approximately a year, if there are no setbacks, such as
objections from the Examiner, oppositions by third parties, etc, so
again, one is looking at registration proceedings lasting between 1 to 2
years.

Other countries will have similar time schedules depending on the degree
to which the trademark application is examined. In France, for example,
it can take less than a year, approximately 6 to 8 months if all goes
smoothly.

Suffice it to say that it is unlikely that there are many "registered"
"LibreOffice" trademarks around at the moment, in which case one should
put "TM". The "TM" labelling is only really significant for the US
anyway, nearly all other countries have a system based on first-come,
first-served registration, whereas the US has both a system of
inter-state commerce recognition of use of a trademark, and a federal
registration system.

Alex

Hi,

Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is
here:http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy)

Please also make sure you have read the additional material here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy and there:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#Resources_for_external_use

I would like to close this vote in about 24 hours from now.

sorry for jumping in so late - was busy with non-TDF work yesterday, and was ill the day before.

May I propose we start another round on Monday? Christoph's changes still need to be incorporated, and I want to avoid confusion which version we approve now. So, my proposal: Let's work on the last issues over the weekend, incorporate them into the above pages, and then finally vote on Monday for 24 hours - ok?

Florian

Hi,

sorry for jumping in so late - was busy with non-TDF work yesterday, and
was ill the day before.

May I propose we start another round on Monday? Christoph's changes still
need to be incorporated, and I want to avoid confusion which version we
approve now. So, my proposal: Let's work on the last issues over the
weekend, incorporate them into the above pages, and then finally vote on
Monday for 24 hours - ok?

sure.

Best,

Charles.

Hi,

May I propose we start another round on Monday? Christoph's changes still
need to be incorporated, and I want to avoid confusion which version we
approve now. So, my proposal: Let's work on the last issues over the
weekend, incorporate them into the above pages, and then finally vote on
Monday for 24 hours - ok?

sure.

so, Christoph, can you please commit your changes; Charles, can you - after verifying it - start a new voting round on Monday or so?

Thanks,
Florian

The current Logo page currently says:

"Distributors of the substantially unmodified binaries are allowed to
distribute the product, so they distribute it with the TDF subline
inside the product. If you're unsure of what is meant by "substantially
unmodified binaries" please refer to the clause 1 of the Permitted Use
section in the TDF Trademark Policy."

which seems to bring the Logo Policy back into sync with the Trademark
policy, i.e. we don't have to change the splashscreen if we don't
substantially modify the binaries.

Guess should hold off on voting until the final Monday round, but
Trademark and Logo policies are looking reasonable to me.

C.

Hi Florian, Charles, all!

Thank you Florian for stepping in :slight_smile:

so, Christoph, can you please commit your changes; Charles, can you -
after verifying it - start a new voting round on Monday or so?

Done. Revised content is now on the trademark guidelines page:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy

I hope I didn't miss anything ...

Cheers,
Christoph

Hi,

Done. Revised content is now on the trademark guidelines page:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy

I hope I didn't miss anything ...

thanks a lot! If there are no objections, Charles can start the next voting round. :slight_smile:

Anyone who wants to raise concerns, please send them in *now*.

Florian

Thank you Christoph!

And now again, and hopefully for the last time, SC members only,
please cast your vote in the form of +1 or -1 for the approval of the
Trademark Policy.

This ballot shall close tomorrow at 2 pm CET (Berlin/Paris).

Best,

Hi Charles,

  I inserted
  inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
  version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.

  Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can use the
LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example" seems to
accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for:

  * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
  * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"

  As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially
unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the
LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy
says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too.

  Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like there are a
lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for:

  * restricting spokespeople to a chosen set
  * ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known
  * defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be
    LibreOffice

  Then there are two sets of marks:

  * LibreOffice
  * The Document Foundation

  And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different policy for
these two marks.

  Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" - which
incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no
difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a
difference.

  Which is correct ?

  It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the two.
  You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but
  that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, image
  marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different values.

  Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want different rules to
a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really saying it is ok for
someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document Foundation" - if they use
a different font/set of colors / style of writing ? :slight_smile: I hope not.

  Mozilla use a single policy for their "Marks" and IMHO we should do the
same (as the original, legally reviewed guidelines did) - I see you
replaced "Mark" with "Trademark" in each case, I don't think this makes
for a clear, crisp policy.

Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one
more period of 24 hours now.

  My take is: that the situation gets more confused rather than clearer
the more that the pages are edited :slight_smile: The original TM policy, as
reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not watertight.

  I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider actually what it
is we want to achieve with this separation of different logos / marks;
it is -highly- unclear to me.

  Then I suggest we write that down clearly, succinctly, and minimally -
in tight language that can be understood by everyone.

  That is IMHO not where we are today; so I recommend we do not approve
the policy in its current form; sorry.

  HTH,

    Michael.

Hello Michael,

Hi Charles,

> I inserted
> inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially
> unmodified version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the
> Trademark Policy.

  Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can
use the LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example"
seems to accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for:

  * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
  * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"

  As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for
"substantially unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even
defending the LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its
use ? the TM policy says it can only be used for "Substantially
unmodified" software too.

  Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like
there are a lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for:

  * restricting spokespeople to a chosen set
  * ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known
  * defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be
    LibreOffice

  Then there are two sets of marks:

  * LibreOffice
  * The Document Foundation

  And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different
policy for these two marks.

  Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" -
which incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no
difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a
difference.

  Which is correct ?

> It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the
> two. You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but
> that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos,
> image marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different
> values.

  Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want
different rules to a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really
saying it is ok for someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document
Foundation" - if they use a different font/set of colors / style of
writing ? :slight_smile: I hope not.

  Mozilla use a single policy for their "Marks" and IMHO we
should do the same (as the original, legally reviewed guidelines did)
- I see you replaced "Mark" with "Trademark" in each case, I don't
think this makes for a clear, crisp policy.

> Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one
> more period of 24 hours now.

  My take is: that the situation gets more confused rather than
clearer the more that the pages are edited :slight_smile: The original TM
policy, as reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not
watertight.

  I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider
actually what it is we want to achieve with this separation of
different logos / marks; it is -highly- unclear to me.

  Then I suggest we write that down clearly, succinctly, and
minimally - in tight language that can be understood by everyone.

  That is IMHO not where we are today; so I recommend we do not
approve the policy in its current form; sorry.

  HTH,

    Michael.

Normally I woud probably start to rant but you're outlining something
important here :slight_smile:

I think if you're confused then other people are confused. I think that
the TM policy is trying to address one global situation while keeping
one specific exception (the TDF outline) as a somewhat more restrictive
usage.

The TM policy should be kept as is, probably, but we should come up
with one specific exception for TDF, included right inside the text.
Which means we need to draft one more paragraph into it. What do you
(and the others) think

Hi Michael, Charles, all,

please let me describe how I think it is meant - probably we need to rephrase the Logo policy (but not the Trademark Policy).

As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO) aside for the moment.

It can be fine-tuned later on.

If you want the Logo Policy to become a relevant part, then you should consider to add a link (and/or a one-line description) to the Policies paragraph (merchandise, services). At the moment this paragraph doesn't differ between the different logos.

Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph:

At the moment it reads:
You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites.

Adding "for that purpose" restricts the use of the "internal" logo:

You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics for that purpose from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites.

If you are interested in my perception of the Logo Policy, please read on - even if the topic is tightly connected, it is a different one...

Michael Meeks schrieb:

Hi Charles,

   I inserted
   inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
   version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.

This is a direct reference to the Trademark Policy - I don't know if it is necessary to repeat it here.

The main point for the product is:

When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified".

  Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can use the
LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example" seems to
accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for:

  * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
  * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"

It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above:
"Individual community members and other people referring to our product and the community should use the logo without the subline."

  As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially
unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the
LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy
says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too.

That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here.

The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it contains the "substantially unmodified binaries".

But in the description of this product, references to the community, merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF.

  Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like there are a
lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for:

  * restricting spokespeople to a chosen set
  * ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known
  * defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be
    LibreOffice

You're right: These are parts of the Trademark Policy, but for the first point misinterpretation should be reduced by appliance of the Logo Policy.

  Then there are two sets of marks:

  * LibreOffice
  * The Document Foundation

Right.

  And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different policy for
these two marks.

No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the wordmarks.

  Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" - which
incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no
difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a
difference.

  Which is correct ?

The Trademark Guidelines.

There is no way to use the word "LibreOffice" in a way that is not in agreement with the Trademark Policy.

But the logo to be used for this reference exists in two different versions. One for TDF and community, one for everybody else.

   It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the two.
   You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but
   that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, image
   marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different values.

+1

  Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want different rules to
a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really saying it is ok for
someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document Foundation" - if they use
a different font/set of colors / style of writing ? :slight_smile: I hope not.

Nobody told so - and I can't read it on the Logo Policy page either.

[...]The original TM policy, as
reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not watertight.

  I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider actually what it
is we want to achieve with this separation of different logos / marks;
it is -highly- unclear to me.

I don't know if it is necessary to separate official logo usage from "external". Debian tried this by creating different logos (one under proprietary and another under open license), but at least in public the "official" version is scarcely recognized: http://www.debian.org/logos/

In my eyes it should be sufficient to provide guidelines to the logo usage - not only for the proper spacing, colors and so on, but to describe, what we think is necessary to keep a reference to our product and community unmistakably different from our own public appearance.

Best regards

Bernhard

Bernhard Dippold wrote:

As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be
reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO)
aside for the moment.

Hi Bernhard, all,

well maybe - but maybe we should beforehand try to reach mutual
agreement on what we want to achieve (unless we want to go back &
change the trademark policy, possibly) -

Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph:

Hm, I don't think that really clears things up enough?

When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called
LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at
least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the
logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified".

Yes, and

> * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
> * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"

It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above:
"Individual community members and other people referring to our
product and the community should use the logo without the subline."
>
> As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially
>unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the
>LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy
>says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too.

That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here.

The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it
contains the "substantially unmodified binaries".

But in the description of this product, references to the community,
merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF
subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF.

And this is not clearly separated at all, I'm afraid. The catch is
that there's a very fuzzy border between a splash screen (being
permitted to display TDF), and a screenshot on a box (*not* being
permitted to display TDF, if handed out by a mere community member,
if I interpret you right?)

No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they
aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the
wordmarks.

I think that was Michael's issue - with the link to the logo
guidelines, they actually affect each other, legally. :wink:

So if you're ok that if in doubt, the Trademark rules are the
authoritative ones (i.e. I don't want to revisit them, should we
later discover they contradict the intended logo guidelines), then
I'd agree with your proposal to remove the link to the logo
guidelines and approve the trademark rules as-is.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi,

I turned this discussion inside out in my mind, and I think that we can
perhaps work it out if we ask a different question.
We all agree on the TM policy itself (we do, I think). There is but one
detail concerning the use of the TDF subline in a logo that is understood as
somewhat different (or not). The reason we have this discussion is that we,
or at least a majority of us believe that TDF itself on a logo should not be
used that easily.

So the question is: does the TM policy in abstracto give enough protection
to all of our trademarks, logos etc? If not, can we insert some additional
languages?

Hope this helps,

Charles.

Hi,

sorry for stepping in so late on this, the last days have been a bit busy with off-TDF things. :slight_smile:

I've lost plot a bit: Is there a formal vote running now, or do we need to clarify the situation with regards to the TDF tagline?

Florian

Hi,

Hi,

sorry for stepping in so late on this, the last days have been a bit
busy with off-TDF things. :slight_smile:

I've lost plot a bit: Is there a formal vote running now, or do we
need to clarify the situation with regards to the TDF tagline?

there's no more formal running vote. We're discussing on what to do
with respect to the TDF trademark itself and the TDF subline. My last
post was asking the following question: If we agree on the TM policy in
general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark
need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM
already cover its usage?

Best,

Hi Charles,

there's no more formal running vote. We're discussing on what to do
with respect to the TDF trademark itself and the TDF subline. My last
post was asking the following question: If we agree on the TM policy in

I agree, and thanks a lot for drafting and pushing it forward! Just one remark: Legally, we should maybe mention "Referred to 'TDF' in this document", rather than "short 'TDF'", as the latter one might create the impression "TDF" is our trademark as well, which it isn't.

I also would change "widespread use of TDF trademarks" to "widespread use of our trademarks", as the former one might raise the impression people should use the TDF subline as much as possible, which they shouldn't. This term, "TDF trademarks", occurs more often, and probably all should be replaced by "our trademarks", to make it clear and avoid confusion.

We should also add a separate paragraph "Contact", where we sum up the contact possibilities. In addition to the e-mail address, we should also add a fax number. Feel free to use mine, which is currently also registered with the trademark office, as I'm the legal representant of OOoDeV: +49 8341 99660889 (we will this replace then later on with the official TDF fax number)

The sentence "Trademarks are not just TDF logos but also the names of its various products and projects, as well as the names documentfoundation.org and libreoffice.org among others (also called word marks), and are collectively referred to as “TDF Trademarks”." is wrong. The only thing generally registered as trademark or being filed is "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation", solely as word mark. No logos, no URLs and the like. These can, however, be covered by copyright or competition law, and we should add a sentence. Sorry for being so touchy here, but in some countries claiming TMs you don't have is even a crime.

Legally, we should also avoid saying at the moment that the trademarks belong to TDF, as legally, they belong to OOoDeV. However, if this policy will be put in place only as soon as the foundation legally exists, leave it in the draft. In that case, don't worry about my fax number, rather wait until we have our own office or contact point. :slight_smile:

general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark
need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM
already cover its usage?

It is indeed a bit confusing. In the beginning, we talk about LibO and TDF trademarks, but then we have this paragraph: "TDF Trademarks should be used in their exact form, neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words. TDF has a set of acceptable logos for general use. If you are not sure where they are please inquire on our lists. Only the logos that bear the exact mention of the software name with the mention “The Document Foundation” are reserved for the sole and official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash screens from software builds compiled by the Document Foundation or DVD labels officially stemming from the Document Foundation. You may not use this set of logos but only the logos bearing the software name without the Document Foundation's mention."

I think Michael raised these concerns already and wanted to legally check it. Michael, any results?

Sorry for jumping in so late... although this mail is rather long, I think the points addressed are just minor and do not touch the general intention of the TM policy. :slight_smile:

Florian

Hi guys,

> general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark
> need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM
> already cover its usage?

It is indeed a bit confusing. In the beginning, we talk about LibO and
TDF trademarks, but then we have this paragraph: "TDF Trademarks should
be used in their exact form, neither abbreviated nor combined with any

  Right :slight_smile:

I think Michael raised these concerns already and wanted to legally
check it. Michael, any results?

  Nope; and I couldn't share any such advice as you know :slight_smile: But I think
the points I raised were obvious enough even to an IANAL type such as
myself.

Sorry for jumping in so late...

  Ditto, I've been buried.

  Personally - I would be well up for getting the trademark policy out in
its earlier form before we started to try to get the logo distinction
included.

  IMHO - we have everything we want to stop crazies pretending to be us
by clearly forbidding:

  "2. In any way that indicates a greater degree of association
      between you and TDF than actually exists".

  I would suggest that we remove the in-text reference to the Logo page;
and yet have a clear statement on the separate Logo page, and perhaps
add a FAQ type link at the bottom ("does using a TDF logo indicate an
association with the project?") that says something like:

  "Using a Logo with 'The Document Foundation' sub-line without being
officially recognised as part of TDF idicates a degree of association
that is closer than actually exists, and is therefore in breach of our
trademark guidelines". "Please use the non-TDF mark in its place in its
place etc. etc. ... "

  That is a helpful clarification I think.

  I'd like to recommend keeping the other bits until we have a foundation
and employed counsel that can advise us on this; but I would also like
to further advise that legal advice is deadly expensive, and usually
extremely vague - handing you the same risks back again; and we have
(perhaps) better things to spend our money on :wink:

  My feeling is also that we should fix the over-concern and distinction
of "trademarks" from other marks, and restore the original "Marks"
language that was a result of better advice.

  So - in short with a few cleans and I'm happy :slight_smile:

  HTH,

    Michael.