Dan Carlson wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a
trademark
>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?
Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen
statements to the following
effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
trademark, of (company name)." So there's definitely a difference.
For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("®"),
while "LIGHT · CRISP · REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").
But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)
I'd just like to point out that, since Wikipedia
/is/ the biggest wiki
out there (probably, anyway), then it could just be an innocent
misunderstanding. A statement that Wikipedia is a trademark would go a
long way towards fixing that problem.
I'd hope so; in your case, just saying «"Wikipedia" is our name only;
the generic term is "wiki", so please use that word instead.» worked.
But «"Wikipedia" is our trademark.» just says «"Wikipedia" is our
name.»
in stronger language. We should use that language immediately,
regardless of the results of research into the feasibility of registration.
-- Toby