Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...


Hi guys,

On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:56 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:
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 :-)

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 :-) 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 ;-)

        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 :-)

        HTH,

                Michael.

-- 
 michael.meeks@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


-- 
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 ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.