Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > "The sign X, registered as a trademark under number $NUM in
> > $REGION,..."
>
> I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
> Possibly, they are just unregistered trademarks...
> Does anybody know for sure?
I didn't think of unregistered marks. Yes, in that case it
gets more tricky. This is a mostly-US problem; the other
jurisdictions I know of simply do not recognize trademark
rights unless registered.
> Anyway, how do you propose to keep the current role distinction between
> the two logos?
TINLA but I don't think that is necessary. Since the license
is "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't confuse people
with us", you simply argue differently when you think there
is confusion.
For the open use logo, you would say there is confusion only
when people try to indicate endorsement by Debian.
For the official use logo you would say there is confusion
also when people pretend whatever they have is Official Debian.
Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
and how that can affect your trademark.
> > When you describe what the mark covers, you also describe what
> > the mark does not cover. If three years later your mark has
> > expanded to cover new things, this license will limit you.
>
> That is to say: restrictions won't expand?
I don't know what you mean by that.
The wording with X and Z seems to suggest that you mean that
X can only be a trademark for Z ("representing Z"). So there
can only be confusion when people use X representing Z, right?
Now suppose three years from now X also becomes known to
represent T. With your license, can you still argue that
X is being misused when people use it to represent T, falsely
pretending affiliation with X? I'm not sure, because the license
says that X only represents Z.
> I'd rather avoid the latter, even at the cost of risking the former!
I understand that. It's difficult to allow other people to do
things with your trademark, because it is easy to permit too much
and that can kill your trademark. It's not like copyright where
a too-liberal license means someone can use it in a way you don't
like; there you still have your free original.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: