On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Wait, the Debian Project should clarify the intended meanings of the
> > two different logos, in order to inform users upfront about which
> > uses will be considered OK, and which will be deemed to be abuses...
>
> Ok, then I would suggest moving that out of the first sentence and
> into a new paragraph. "The above exception only applies for the
> situations described in Exhibit Z". Then you can write an Exhibit Z
> for your own trademark(s).
Well, won't it be way too detailed, if a separate Exhibit is needed?
>
> > | The sign [X] (hereafter "the Mark") is a trademark, rights to
> > | which are held by [Y] (hereafter "the Mark Holder"), representing
> > | [Z].
> >
> > AFAIUI, this means that the sign [X] is a trademark that means or
> > refers to [Z].
>
> Right. My problem with that is that Z can change over time, but
> the definition of Z won't change with that.
Does the Debian Project *desire* that the meaning of the Official Use
Logo can change over time (without intervention by GR, I mean)?
I don't think so[1]: that's why I said that a clarification on its
meaning should be kept in its trademark notice.
The same holds for the Open Use Logo.
[1] Obviously I could be wrong: since IANADD, I would like to hear the
opinion of actual DDs on this point.
>
> > The trademark license should forbid people to use [X] to mean or
> > refer to something that is *not* [Z].
>
> Suppose Debian becomes a free hardware company too.
Well, the Debian Project is not a company at present. I don't know if
and how it could become a company in any field, but anyway let's go on
with your example.
> The license
> would still refer to software only, as it was written before
> that happened.
The Open Use Logo would still refer to the Debian Project and the Debian
distributions. The Official Use Logo would still imply endorsement by
the Debian Project.
*If* that hypothetical company *is* the Debian Project (but I
cannot understand how it could be...), then I see no problems.
*If* that hypothetical company is something else (and is only
*related* to the Debian Project), then different logo(s) will be created
for that company, and again I see no problems.
> Then can I use the sign Debian to promote my
> proprietary hardware company?
Can you do so *now* (well, OK, not really now, but with the current
proposed trademark license)?
It would be use in commerce (in the computer field) of a Debian
trademark to refer to something that is not Debian. It is likely to
create confusion or mistake as to the affiliation, connection, or
association of the proprietary hardware company or its products with the
Debian Project or otherwise as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval
of its products, service or other commercial activity by the Debian
Project.
I would say that you cannot use the sign this way.
If this is true, then I would say that you won't be able to use the sign
this way, not even when (and if) the Debian Project has become a free
hardware company.
> The license only said I couldn't
> create confusion with the software parts of Debian.
The license says you cannot create confusion with the Debian Project and
the Debian distributions.
Creating confusion with the Debian Project seems to be disallowed...
>
> > [X] = Debian Open Use Logo
> > [Z] = Debian Project and Debian distributions
> > Nobody is allowed to use [X] (or a confusingly similar sign) to
> > refer to IBM, or to Slackware, or to Microsoft, or to MacOS X, ...
>
> Ehm, you can't do *that* in a trademark license. You can only complain
> if people use X to create confusion in relation to *you*.
>
> Saying "don't create confusion with anyone" goes beyond what you
> are allowed with your trademark.
I'm not following you here.
If that is due to lack of legal expertise on my part, I apologize and I
welcome any lesson you can share in order to help me (and the other
participants) to understand this issue better.
If I use the Debian logo to refer to Slackware, I'm creating confusion
with Debian. People may think that the Debian logo is actually the
Slackware logo, while it's not. People may think that Debian and
Slackware are the same entity (because they see the same logo used to
refer to either one), while they are not.
I don't think I can use (in commerce) the Microsoft Corporate logo to
refer to Apple, Inc.
Microsoft trademark guidelines for the Microsoft Corporate logo
state[2], in part:
] As a general rule, third parties may not use the Microsoft(R)
] Corporate Logo ("Logo"). On this page are the limited circumstances
] under which third parties may use the Microsoft Corporate Logo. The
] Logo must always be used pursuant to the specifications on this page
] to identify Microsoft Corporation, or Microsoft products or services.
] Any use that falls outside of these specifications is strictly
] prohibited.
[2] http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/logo.mspx
>
> Anyway, in summary I think it could work to have some Z in there
> but I also think an exhibit is better. That at least avoids the
> impression that Z has to fit in (one part of) a single sentence,
> which probably is too short for most cases.
Well, I'll try to phrase a new proposed trademark license text, as soon
as we clarify the open issues outlined above.
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpYGAMZxDehG.pgp
Description: PGP signature