Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: On the uselessness of Debian trademarks.
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:30:14 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
MJ Ray wrote:
Coming back to this....
> On 2004-05-09 10:05:51 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
>> Note that a trademark doesn't have to be registered to exist.
> OK, right, file, note the following about the previous emails:
> generally, my use of "trademark" was referring to "registered
> trademark giving access to the protections in the Trade Marks Act".
> The restrictions permitted by a *registered* trademark are oppressive
> and Debian should not use them.
Ah. Hmm. Didn't know there were different restrictions permitted by a
registered trademark and an unregistered one in some countries.
Traditionally in the US, registering a trademark establishes
* a presumption in court that it is your trademark; and
* that other users of it should have known that it was.
You have to put the registered trademark symbol after the mark in the first
or most prominent place it appears in any publication, too (which is
related to establishing that other users should have known).
The trademark right was essentially the right to prevent confusion,
inadvertent or otherwise. Perhaps it has expanded beyond all recognition.
But I still remember the D&D case, where it was ruled that saying your
product was "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" was simply not trademark
infringement, despite TSR's lawsuit claiming otherwise. (Sorry, no
> Furthermore, it should not use
> copyright licences to police its logos because it is then promoting
> non-free software.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.