It occurs to me we should enforce some of our trademarks, because rampant infringement of Wikipedia's trademarks, and Wikimedia's trademarks in general is occurring. If we don't enforce our trademarks IIRC, we will eventually lose the ability to enforce them forever.
For example: WikipediaClassAction.org is violating our trademark and copyright. Wikipedi.org, wikicommons.org, etc. are candidates for trademark infringement. I am not a lawyer, but it occurs to me that we apparently abhor being on the defending side of lawsuits so much, we abhor being the plaintiff.
There are several reasons why we should do this soon (ie. issue takedown notices for infringement for these sites):
1. It would establish our authoritative presence in the legal arena, while being relatively easy cases. 2. It would show that we are determined to be accountable, ie. it would dissuade possible malicious vandals, or make them think twice, while not discouraging new users. 3. Following this logic, it shows that just because it is Wikipedia, it doesn't mean we're weak or helpless, or can't eventually use the long arm of the law to find those who try to sabotage the encyclopedia. 4. Imagine what the consequences could be if someone redirected a typosquatting site targeting the Wikipedia audience - to a porn site. 5. The GFDL is being enforced in the same manner: it doesn't compromise our "free as in freedom/information wants to be free" philosophy whatsoever. 6. There's a large chance this will help unite the community in external action.
We would discourage new users only very minimally, and might give us some controversy, but that's only because of the misconception that open source => weak and vulnerable.
On the other hand, people have raised up suggestions that we also have a large case against Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia is Communism.
Of course, I do not seem to know why we don't do this already. Thoughts?
On 1/9/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
- There's a large chance this will help unite the community in external
action.
I'm not sure that is a good thing/
Of course, I do not seem to know why we don't do this already. Thoughts?
Probably becuase out legal stratergy at present hasn't got beyond writeing letters. -- geni
On 1/9/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me we should enforce some of our trademarks, because rampant infringement of Wikipedia's trademarks, and Wikimedia's trademarks in general is occurring. If we don't enforce our trademarks IIRC, we will eventually lose the ability to enforce them forever.
For example: WikipediaClassAction.org is violating our trademark and copyright. Wikipedi.org, wikicommons.org, etc. are candidates for trademark infringement. I am not a lawyer, but it occurs to me that we apparently abhor being on the defending side of lawsuits so much, we abhor being the plaintiff.
I'll bite. What's wrong with wikicommons.org? Are you trying to say the WMF has a trademark on anything that starts with wiki?
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'll bite. What's wrong with wikicommons.org? Are you trying to say the WMF has a trademark on anything that starts with wiki?
I can't speak for the original poster, but he probably doesn't realize that registering domain names is not copyright infringement. He's right about the first one though. WikipediaClassAction.org uses the Wikipedia logo, and I presume without permission. Has anyone in an official capacity contacted them about this?
Ryan
It can still be trademark infringement though. You can't go and register cocacola.org without hearing from lawyers.
Steve
On 1/9/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'll bite. What's wrong with wikicommons.org? Are you trying to say the WMF has a trademark on anything that starts with wiki?
I can't speak for the original poster, but he probably doesn't realize that registering domain names is not copyright infringement. He's right about the first one though. WikipediaClassAction.org uses the Wikipedia logo, and I presume without permission. Has anyone in an official capacity contacted them about this?
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
It can still be trademark infringement though. You can't go and register cocacola.org without hearing from lawyers.
Steve
Eh? The law must have changed since I last looked. What happened to the cybersquatter who got a few million for mcdonalds.com?
Ryan
Eh? The law must have changed since I last looked. What happened to the cybersquatter who got a few million for mcdonalds.com?
Have you got a cite for it? The last I heard was either the law changed, or they started enforcing it, but I'm sure I've read several articles saying that you just can't do that anymore. Not that there are any decent trademarks left to grab anyway.
See http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/60EC3491-B4B5-4A98-BB6E6632A2FA 0CB2/111/228/195/ART/ or, of course, [[Cybersquatting]] :)
Steve
On 1/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Eh? The law must have changed since I last looked. What happened to the cybersquatter who got a few million for mcdonalds.com?
Have you got a cite for it? The last I heard was either the law changed, or they started enforcing it, but I'm sure I've read several articles saying that you just can't do that anymore. Not that there are any decent trademarks left to grab anyway.
See http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/60EC3491-B4B5-4A98-BB6E6632A2FA 0CB2/111/228/195/ART/ or, of course, [[Cybersquatting]] :)
Steve
That link specifically says that "if the accused cybersquatter can show a judge that he had a reason to register the domain name other than to sell it back to the trademark owner for a profit, then a court will probably allow him to keep the domain name."
Of course, ICANN makes its own rules, which need not have anything to do with trademark law.
And the point I was making was that the WMF doesn't have a trademark on the term "wiki". But since "wikicommons.org" is owned by them anyway, it really doesn't matter.
Anthony
Ryan Delaney wrote:
I'll bite. What's wrong with wikicommons.org? Are you trying to say the WMF has a trademark on anything that starts with wiki?
I can't speak for the original poster, but he probably doesn't realize that registering domain names is not copyright infringement. He's right about the first one though. WikipediaClassAction.org uses the Wikipedia logo, and I presume without permission. Has anyone in an official capacity contacted them about this?
They claim [[fair use]], presumbably as a parody. Good luck financing *that* lawsuit. :/
Best wishes,
Nick
On 1/9/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me we should enforce some of our trademarks, because rampant infringement of Wikipedia's trademarks, and Wikimedia's trademarks in general is occurring. If we don't enforce our trademarks IIRC, we will eventually lose the ability to enforce them forever.
This is true, and it's something the Foundation's legal committee are working on.
Wikipedi.org, wikicommons.org, etc. are candidates for trademark infringement.
Wikicommons.org is owned by the Foundation. Wikipedi is just [[Typosquatting]] and not something I'm too worried about since it would be too costly to prevent every domain typo from being registered.
Angela
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:18:10 +0100, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/9/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me we should enforce some of our trademarks, because rampant infringement of Wikipedia's trademarks, and Wikimedia's trademarks in general is occurring. If we don't enforce our trademarks IIRC, we will eventually lose the ability to enforce them forever.
This is true, and it's something the Foundation's legal committee are working on.
Wikipedi.org, wikicommons.org, etc. are candidates for trademark infringement.
Wikicommons.org is owned by the Foundation. Wikipedi is just [[Typosquatting]] and not something I'm too worried about since it would be too costly to prevent every domain typo from being registered.
Typos are one thing, but what about sites on other top domains like .com or .net. Wikipedia itself seems to be covered, but things like http://www.wikimedia.com and http://www.wikimedia.net (pornsite) are out there. Though I guess it might be better to just ignore those rather than give in to the "blackmail" of various domain sharks.