* Michael Poole (mdpoole@troilus.org) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > I don't get it. Doesn't this mean, also, that in the UK people *could* > > sell shirts with the Coke logo on them? In which case it would seem to > > me that the reasons above for having a trademark in the UK would be > > perfectly legit and very reasonable and enforceable, and their intended > > use? > > I doubt it -- selling shirts would be a commercial purpose outside > "identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a > licensee." Alright, now I think we might be getting somewhere. So the issue here is that, because selling a t-shirt with a trademark on it is outside the scope of "identifying goods [...]" it must therefore be enforced in order to claim that we're enforcing the trademark and have the right to *keep* the trademark then. Given that's the case- do we actually need a *contract* with people using the trademark outside of "identifying goods [...]"? Attempting to find a more technical solution- would it be possible to notify people we find who use the trademark in a way we approve of outside of "identifying goods [...]" that we're cool with them using it and to track such uses in a database maintained by SPI? Doesn't seem to me like that'd be too much effort on our part, or onus on their part. Of course, we could say that we'd prefer if they could notify us so that we could review their use and approve it and add them to our database ahead of time. AIUI, that still doesn't require a restrictive *copyright* on the logo. It does mean we need to stipulate what appropriate uses on the trademark are, but if you modify the logo so that it doesn't look like the trademark anymore I don't think there's a reason that derivative work needs to be restricted due to the copyright (unless the author of the derived work wants to put some additional copyright restrictions on it, of course). Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature