On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:04:34PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have been helping to field trademark inquiries for Debian since late >> February, and the issue of our Logo has come up a number of times. >> >> Currently, our logo is not a registered Trademark, but is considered >> (and treated by our current Trademark policy) as a "common law" >> trademark, in that we have been using it to represent Debian for many >> years, and many people see it and recognize it as "Debian's logo". >> >> I know there have been discussions in the past about moving forward >> with officially registering the logo, but these discussions seem to >> have not ended with a clear decision or agreement one way or another, >> hence the status quo of unregistered common law trademark. >> >> Generally speaking, as a matter of law, it would be better if we >> registered our logo as our Trademark. We had also gotten advice from >> our legal counsel (SFLC) encouraging us to do so. >> >> I don't believe any changes would be required to our Trademark policy >> to accomodate the change from "common law" to "registered" trademark, >> we'd just have the benefit that we'd have an easier time protecting >> it, if we ever found a need to do so. >> >> Here is the Debian Trademark Policy 2.0 [1] guidance on using logos: > > Note guidelines. We don't actually restrict use. > >> >> "Guidelines for Using Logos >> >> - Any scaling must retain the original proportions of the logo. >> - Do not use the Debian logos as part of your company logo or product >> logo or branding itself. They can be used as part of a page describing >> your products or services. >> - You need not ask us for permission to use logos on your own website >> solely as a hyperlink to the Debian project website." >> >> Some may wonder if Registering our logo as a trademark is possible >> with the logo under a fairly liberal Free Software license. The answer >> is yes, as Copyrights are a different set of rights than Trademark. >> Bear in mind or Logo is already one of our Trademarks, we just don't >> have it registered. >> >> Another question that one might raise is, "What if the USPTO rejects >> our logo as too simple, and not creative enough?" In answer, this is >> not a criteria for acceptance. If the mark is distinctive, and unique, >> and isn't already registered, it doesn't really matter how simple or >> complex a design is. e.g. - Think of the "Nike Swoosh". >> >> I would like to work to address what I perceive to be a bug, and get >> our logo official registered. I spoke to leader@ (Lucas) about this, >> and he said that I should first start a dicussion on -project laying >> out the pros and cons, with examples of what other similar projects >> are doing. >> >> Pros: >> ----- >> - Makes it easier, legally speaking, to protect our trademark, if it >> ever came to it > > We really can't. It's now DFSG free. Folks can, legally speaking, do > anything with it, now. There's still the restricted-use logo, which was > left as-is, ISTR. > >> - When companies are doing trademark searches for logos in the >> trademark database, they would be discouraged from using our logo, as >> it is would be in the database. >> - If a company tries to register a logo trademark that is the same as >> ours, the USPTO should not allow it, since it is in their database. (I >> say should, as mistakes can happen) >> >> Cons: >> ----- >> - Filing costs of ~$700 >> - Labor/work required to file (With assistance from SFLC, I am willing >> to do much of the work required.) >> - Required extra coordination with SPI >> - If someone has already filed our logo as a trademark, we will be >> forced into a situation where we need to deal with that. (I have >> already done a preliminary search of the USPTO database, and found no >> such occurrences, so feel this risk is minimal.) >> - In order to maintain the status of a federally registered trademark, >> the owner must file a statement of continued use and later, a renewal >> application. (Again more work, which I am willing to do.) >> >> Other projects that have registered their logo: >> ----------------------------------------------- >> - Apache - Many trademarks, including the feather >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/list/ >> - OpenOffice - Seagull logo >> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ >> - Gentoo Linux - G logo http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml >> - Fedora - Multiple logos http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines >> - Drupal CMS - Druplicon logo http://drupal.org/node/9068 >> http://drupal.com/trademark >> - Gnome - Gnome Foot http://www.gnome.org/foundation/legal-and-trademarks/ >> - Mozilla - Multiple logos (Firefox, Thunderbird and Mozilla) >> http://blog.mozilla.org/press/media-library/ >> - KDE - KDE and the K Desktop Environment logos >> http://techbase.kde.org/Template:KDE_Trademark_Notice > > Do any of these also have a DFSG free logo? I know GNOME at least has > been pissy about our use of their foot on some bug report / ml post I > read.
Regarding the logo being licensed (under Copyright law) with a DFSG approved license, this does not impact our ability to file it as a registered Trademark. While this is confusing, and not a universal practice, other projects have followed this practice of releasing the artwork of their logo under Free Software copyright licenses, while still managing them as a Registered Trademark. 1) KDE logo is licensed under LGPL and is a registered Trademark: http://www.kde.org/stuff/clipart.php http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Guidelines/CIG/KDE_Logo 1) Gnome foot is licensed under LGPL/GPL and is a registered Trademark: (Pretty much all artwork including the foot is licensed under Copyright law under LGPL/GPL). 3) Gentoo - Registered as TM and released under Free Software licenses here: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/artwork/artwork.xml Do remember that Copyright law covers the right to copy and modify, while Trademark law covers the ability to use a word, or graphic to represent a brand or entity. A particular representation of a Trademark, can be licensed in a liberal fashion, allowing copying and modification, but still be managed under Trademark law, when it comes to representation of a "brand". In all the above cases the project's TM policy would take precedence over the Copyright policy, when it comes to the specific case of representation of project/brand. (As it does with our logo today.) I know this is a bit confusing, as it certainly made my head hurt when first learning about these issues, but does this help clarify things? -Brian > >> >> So far in my search of other large Free Software Projects that have a >> singular graphical identify, pretty much all have a registered >> graphical trademark, with the exception of the GNU project's "gnuhead" >> logo. (However, FSF does still treat it as a trademark >> http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html) >> >> What do people feel about proceeding with this registration? >> >> Thanks, >> Brian >> >> [1] - http://www.debian.org/trademark >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org >> Archive: >> http://lists.debian.org/cacfairxvndnemjmdjefhs3hqb2oaskhpbzukf+jhoidln4k...@mail.gmail.com >> > > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> > : :' : Proud Debian Developer > `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 > `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CACFaiRw-ApnPpOd=YT0-5oiVRY0dRJyApD=ej7t67fl_ye8...@mail.gmail.com