Just for the curious of this ridiculous U.S. trademark thing: I found another company claiming GEOCODE as trademark: http://www.markhound.com/trademark/search/WbEfGtOgm And I'm wondering what these 65 services will do http://www.programmableweb.com/apitag/geocoding especially TomTom with it's geocode.com domain...
Yours, S. 2013/2/3 Stefan Keller <sfkel...@gmail.com>: > I support the boards's decisions not only because of being consequent > (having elected them democratically) but because of good reasons. > > Although I worked next to Einstein's office (90 years later after he > was at Swiss patent office :->) I'm not a lawyer. But I learned to be > cautious when there's a mine - and a nasty dance - field as others > stated here before, where lawyers are waiting alongside to make money. > I think there is reasonable evidence that not publishing the C+D > letter was a wise step to save money and keep options open. > > For those who want to fight for freedom of speech I suggest to direct > your first anger and disappointment to the origin of the such U.S. > trademark and copyright wars (like Richard wrote in his blog)! > > Like Yngve I'd like to suggest to calm down (but still commited), be > patient (but still attentive) and save time and money for better > reasons - unless you offer more than 5 pounds to a OSM war chest! > > After all, Simon immediately communicated his actions after the > board's decision. Now let's wait what comes next after a lawyer has > been consulted. > > - S. > > 2013/2/2 Christopher Woods (IWD) <chris...@infinitus.co.uk>: >> >> On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote: >>> >>> This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the >>> C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers >>> about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about >>> it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case >>> that can be as hairy as trademark and copyright issues. >> >> I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM >> holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in >> proximity of Google services. It's such a risible request. That's what makes >> this delay so frustrating for the community as a whole! >> >> Those of us in favour of publication are hardly 'screaming' for it. (This >> includes all the 'armchair lawyers' and some of us who have some real world >> experience dealing with the wonderful world of US and Community TMs >> including disputing, filing and applying for invalidity). Community members >> are requesting it as it impacts upon work they do, there's no real reason to >> withhold the text of the notice. OSMF has no real requirement to seek legal >> guidance prior to first publication, this can be sought after initial >> acknowledgment of receipt, tailoring their action accordingly. >> >> Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D is not >> an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of something >> discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done something wrong? I >> unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that Geocode Inc. is >> misrepresenting the situation. >> >> >>> Not that I support trademarking dictionary words, but obviously somebody >>> do, and some patent authorities accept. OSMF need to thread correctly into >>> this matter, and temporarily removing potentially material is one of the >>> steps. As far as I can see, none of SimonPoole's edits are actually >>> redacting the matter in question, his edits are more a "first response", >>> like a "we have recieved your notice and prepare ourself for action. If this >>> case turns toxic maybe SimonPoole will have to redact the edits with the >>> contaminated trademark, let us hope it never comes to that. >> >> The USPTO's mark awards have no jurisdiction outside of the States. Geocode >> Inc.'s CTM was 'absolutely refused' on grounds of genericism (prior art, if >> you will), by OHIM. This is an open-and-shut case! >> >> >>> Let us all also work together in this case to show support to OSM and OSMF >>> and do what can be done to undermine the claims from the issuer of the C+D >>> in such a way that any court cases will tip in favour of OSM continuing what >>> we always have done. >> >> I like most others support the OSMF's contribution to the mapping projects. >> OSM has made great progress over the past few years. >> >> There's no need to do anything to undermine the issuer's claims, they >> undermine themselves if they claim trade mark authority in Europe when no >> such authority exists. To fully protect their reg mark, Geocode would need >> to follow the procedures of the Madrid System and apply for an International >> TM to cover ~70 territories where they wish to protect the mark (including >> the USA). >> >> OHIM handle Community Trade Marks for the EU (you can still register a mark >> solely for the UK without it covering the EU which is what it looks like >> Geocode tried to do). With it costing 600 Euros just to renew a CTM for ten >> years, I expect they don't think it's worth their while to file for an >> International trade mark... Given their existing refusal it's reasonable to >> assume they'd never get it. Geocode are trade mark trolling! >> >> >>> I would very much like to see the C+D myself as I find the claims (as far >>> as I have understood from the information already leaked) totally >>> unacceptable, but have put myself with patience, at least until SimonPoole >>> and OSMF have had time to get a formal advise from any legal partner. >> >> Without seeing the specifics of the C&D (and now we're talking in circles), >> I still believe that any legal counsel worth their salt would instruct OSMF >> to refer Geocode to the response in Arkell v. Pressdram. I'm willing to >> stake five of the Queen's English pounds on this ;-) >> >> If the legal advice substantially differs, I'll double this £5 then donate >> to the Foundation's fighting fund, and I'll become a paid-up OSMF member. >> May still become an OSMF member to vote in the next Board elections. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
