RE: [DotGNU]proposal: DotGNU Trademark License
--- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A bare trademark license is not allowed under trademark law. This > license is > the easiest way to lose the DotGNU service mark. > > /Larry Rosen Larry, Sorry for my late reply, I just noticed that today. Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by "bare trademark license"? Can you give me some hints on what to read up on? Thanks, mike = James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: [DotGNU]proposal: DotGNU Trademark License
James Michael DuPont wrote: > Sorry for my late reply, I just noticed that today. > Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by > "bare trademark license"? Can you give me some hints on what > to read up on? Just a few hints. I don't have time to give comprehensive legal answers about this topic now. 37 C.F.R. § 2.38(b-c) says: §2.38 Use by predecessor or by related companies. (b) If the mark is not in fact being used by the applicant but is being used by one or more related companies whose use inures to the benefit of the applicant under §5 of the Act, such facts must be indicated in the application. (c) The Office may require such details concerning the nature of the relationship and such proofs as may be necessary and appropriate for the purpose of showing that the use by related companies inures to the benefit of the applicant and does not affect the validity of the mark. And 15 U.S.C. § 1127 says: Related company. The term related company means any person whose use of a mark is controlled by the owner of the mark with respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used. The problem for bare trademark licensing is the requirement that "the use by related companies inures to the benefit of the applicant." The trademark licensor must maintain control over the quality of the goods because it is HIS trademark that brands those goods. A licensor cannot do that by simply saying to a "related company" that "here is a license to my trademark." Will the licensee apply the licensor's trademark on garbage (or crappy software)? Would such a use of the trademark inure to the benefit of the trademark licensor? Or is the bare trademark license a form of admission by the licensor that the trademark doesn't matter much, and it doesn't serve a proper trademark purpose? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
LAB Public License proposal
Hello, Intending to use the following license for LAB Project, I need your advice and discussion about. It is an adapted version of http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cuaoffice.php modified to comply with both USA, French and EEC regulations. Only some minor formulations and definitions changes and a specific Frenc regulations paragrah were added to comply with 3 regulations. Pre publication is at : http://labsupport.free.fr/liclab.html temporary address before publishing on official project.site. As the text is rather long, I prefer to submit it as link instead of full text inclusion. Thanks for your advice JCR aka DJ Anubis -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: [DotGNU]proposal: DotGNU Trademark License
--- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Michael DuPont wrote: > > Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by > > "bare trademark license"? Can you give me some hints on what > > to read up on? > > Just a few hints. I don't have time to give comprehensive legal > answers > about this topic now. > Thanks, I think you explained this fine. > The problem for bare trademark licensing is the requirement that "the > use by > related companies inures to the benefit of the applicant." The > trademark > licensor must maintain control over the quality of the goods because > it is > HIS trademark that brands those goods. A licensor cannot do that by > simply > saying to a "related company" that "here is a license to my > trademark." Will > the licensee apply the licensor's trademark on garbage (or crappy > software)? That makes sense. > Or is the bare trademark license a form of admission by the > licensor that the trademark doesn't matter much, and it doesn't serve > a proper trademark purpose? So, In short, you are saying that it is difficult to apply the idea of copy left to trademarks, because by distributing the trademark to other people, you are in effect watering it down. I guess you would have to make a Franchise type system where you have a level of quality that is required to use the trademarked goods. It is also the question, how valid would such a servicemark/trademark be if it was first pushed as free/open source software for everyone to use and license, and after that was done, to turn around and try and restrict it. It seems that if you let the cat out the bag, and try and make a community effort out of a certain servicemark, then you will have a hard time trying to sue someone who is still using it. I can imagine on the other side of the coin, the trademark is also to protect the consumers from bogus products as well! If people are playing games with trademarks, and dilluting them down, then the consumer is not getting any benefit or protecting from it. Thanks for you comments, mike = James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
