Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:24:00 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > The sign [X] (hereafter "the Mark") is a trademark, rights to which
> > are held by [Y], representing [Z] if applicable (hereafter "the
> > Mark Holder").
>
> Wait, the "Mark Holder" would be [Y], I think.
I thought you used Y and Z for cases where Y is licensing Z's
trademark (if Y is Z's subsidiary or authorized licensee for example).
Then the trademark holder is Z but Y has certain rights to the mark.
The "if applicable" means if there is a Z. Perhaps the whole Z thing
should be taken out. "Rights to which are held by Y", and in the
document where you define Y you can explain that Y is a subsidiary
of Z or whatever.
> | If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under
> | copyright law, then the Mark Holder hereby also grants you a copyright
> | license, but that is not a trademark license and should not be
> | construed as one.
That's what I meant.
If you're separating the two, I don't think the word "also" in the
above is appropriate. I guess in such a case you don't want to say
more than "there's also a copyright license, go read that one, but
remember it's not a trademark license."
| If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under
| copyright law, then the Mark Holder SEPARATELY grants you a copyright
| license, but that is not a trademark license and should not be
| construed as one.
That word 'separately' makes it clear that this sentence is merely
an explanation and not by itself a copyright license.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: