[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:54:47 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Anyway, I have a question: does the latter ("may not [...] harm the
> > reputation of the trademark holder") prevent me from stating
> > 
> >   "Debian GNU/Linux sucks badly"
> Good point. I would say no, as long as it is clear that "use"
> in the above sentence refers to a use covered by trademark.
> perhaps it's
> best to just drop that part.

How would the revised wording look like?

> > possibly with the swirl (== Open Use Logo) associated to the
> > sentence?
> As an aside, in my experience courts are more likely to forbid use
> of graphical marks than word marks in cases like this. You can't
> criticize a company without mentioning its name, but do you really
> need to show its logo? 

Maybe, for instance if I want to criticize the logo, as well...

P.S.: Please do not reply to me, Cc:ing the list, as I didn't asked you
to do so.  I am a debian-legal subscriber and would rather avoid
receiving the same message twice.  Reply to the list only (as long as
you want to send a public response).  See
for more details.  Thanks.

 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: pgpwv_SlYwyW1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: