Peter Jaros wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2004, at 1:32 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but
>> I'm much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit.
>> Trademark protection is normally denied for terms that are merely
>> descriptive of the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark
>> examiner, but my conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and
>> refreshing" are simply descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.
>
> Sort of like "fair and balanced?"
Trademark protection is not available for merely descriptive terms, or
for deceptively misdescriptive terms. So regardless of whether you
actually believe this particular network's slogan, it shouldn't be a
trademark, right?
As it turns out, "fair & balanced" is a registered trademark (actually a
service mark, since news broadcasts are a service and not a commodity).
One thing I neglected to discuss is that descriptive terms can become
trademarks if they acquire "secondary meaning". This pretty much means
that the term becomes so closely connected with the product or service
that the public automatically associates the two. You may note that I
have been coy about identifying the owner of this mark, but I expect
that most people reading this have already recognized that it belongs to
Fox News. I think that illustrates my point about secondary meaning, and
gives Fox a decent argument for trademark status.
Anyway, this prompted me to look up whether Pepsi has actually filed
"light, crisp, and refreshing". Well, they have, but only as part of the
Diet Pepsi logo, and in this filing they disclaimed any exclusive right
to use "light", "crisp", or "refreshing" aside from the logo. I don't
think Pepsi would have a good argument, because when I read the phrase,
I don't immediately think of Diet Pepsi. But Pepsi does have a
registered trademark for "SO LIGHT. SO CRISP. SO REFRESHING."
--Michael Snow
I've set up Wiktionaries for all 146 languages that have a Wikipedia.
There's known teething problems, however they should be good be working well
enough now for people to get started. The most important problem is that
many languages have a project namespace of "Wikipedia" (or the
transliterated equivalent), but the interface messages point to
"Wiktionary". I suggest that for the time being, people should put pages in
the real Wikipedia: namespace, and set up redirects from the Wiktionary:
pseudo-namespace where necessary. Wiktionaries with no language file, or
with language files which use $wgMetaNamespace, do not suffer this problem.
The MediaWiki namespaces have been copied from the associated Wikipedias,
with the local term for "Wikipedia" replaced by "Wiktionary".
To request adminship or bureaucratship on the new wiktionaries, go to:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_Wiktionary_permissions
I've set up a few basic kinds of interwiki links, which may be expanded or
modified in the future. The "w:" prefix should link to the Wikipedia in the
same language. Language prefixes link to other language Wiktionaries. To
link to a different language Wikipedia, use [[Wikipedia:xx:Page]].
This brings the total number of wikis to 298. There's a few technical and
administrative changes which occurred to make this happen. Stewards should
know that they can change the rights of users on the wiktionaries by
appending "wiktionary" to the language code, e.g. "Tim
Starling@frwiktionary" . Wikis such as sources and sep11 can now only be
accessed by appending "wiki", i.e. metawiki, sourceswiki, quotewiki,
sep11wiki and textbookwiki.
Another change is that the English Wiktionary has moved from wiktionary.org
to en.wiktionary.org, bringing it into line with the rest of the
wiktionaries and with Wikipedia. There are redirects of course, so links
won't be broken. The only links that were broken during the construction of
these wikis were images uploaded to the English, French or Polish
Wiktionaries. The directory layout was rearranged to minimise the overhead
per wiki.
-- Tim Starling
When I joined Wikipedia more than 2 years ago, I
remember much unhappiness due to lack of information
of some parts of the project. For those who may not
have this memory (omg, I feel old in saying this),
lack of information lead to a fork. Though a fork is
certainly very unlikely these days, I believe the
growing feeling that fair process is not respected, is
bad for general spirit.
I remember that situation improved a lot, partly
because mailing lists were reorganised, partly because
meta became multilingual, and mostly partly because
people made an effort to
1) give information and
2) give it at the right place
3) discuss things before deciding it (or at least gave
people the opportunity to discuss it)
Sorry to say that, but I think we are on the bad slope
again. And I think we should seriously think about it.
Typical signs which I believe show information flow is
broken again ?
-> I hear people complain on irc
-> We start mail crossing again in an attempt to
restructure mailing flow
-> Things are learned again, not by regular channel,
but by personal information network.
Couple of points
* I think that software improvement should follow
needs, not the reverse. It may be either because
there is open and pressing request from users, or
because there was a suggestion and a developer had a
great idea. But it is curious that soft improvements
are made without users knowing (ie, without the
improvement been mentionned elsewhere than on
wikitech). Could soft improvement be mentionned on
wikipedia-l then ?
* When a soft improvement is done to fit legal
requirements, please, could it be discussed on
foundation-l to check if that complies with the legal
requirements ?
* When a hardware update is being done, please, could
it be announced on wikitech, or on meta, so that when
users wonder what is going on, there is something else
to answer than "no idea"
* When a change is made in the purpose of donations,
could it be mentionned on foundation-l (rather than
only on en:) so that all projects could change the
initial purposes given by Jimbo ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
I have just come across the user page of
Enforcer(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enforcer),
a troll who has today challenged the right of
Wikimedia to seek charitable donations outside of
Florida .
He says he has done research finding that the
foundation is breaking the law, and appears to have
groomed "potential complainants" to file lawsuits
against the Wikimedia Foundation in their respective
states. I'm no legal person, so could anyone tell me
whether what he is saying is correct, whether anything
needs to be rectified, who he really is (in terms of a
user), and how he can be dealt with?
- Gabriel Beecham / Kwekubo
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Toby Bartels wrote:
> 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.)
>
Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.
"TM" is a symbol anybody can use to claim something is a trademark. No
registration, or even application to register the trademark, is
required. So this is a classic example of the difference between
registered and unregistered marks.
Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.
--Michael Snow
First, I apology for breaking the thread. Gname is not
working for me for wikipedia-l and foundation-l, and I
know not why.
"A" == Anthere
<anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
A> So, tel me if I understand well, to comply with
the gfdl the
A> best we can (and we already know it is
problematic), what you
A> suggest is to list first the real name
contributors, followed
A> by pseudonymes, then by ips.
OK, so, this feature is on its way with 1.3. I'm less
concerned with
the GFDL than with the Creative Commons
Attribution-style licenses, by
the way, which is what Wikitravel uses.
I'm not sure if this feature will be enabled on any of
the Wikimedia
projects, or how. My main concern is to make it easy
for people
redistributing Wikitravel content to conform to the
attribution
requirements of our license.
------
First thanks for the detailed answer.
I am not sure current editors are requesting to have
the names of authors in the wikipedia page, nor on a
printed page. Why could not the requirements be on a
separate page for the online edition, just by clicking
on a link located at the top of the page ? The author
page could list the last editors and all the others
ones, and that would be a neater list that current
history.
On a printed version, is it best as well, to add 5
names and last authors at the top of articles ? Or
could we just not propose at the end of the
special-for-print page, precisely a list of authors
and the last one.
We should provide the list for legal requirements, but
our names are only important for legal issues, not for
readers. We are not so important individually, as to
be listed at the top of articles, especially since we
know that it is quite subjective to list these 5 names
as five authors.
-----
I understand the proposition to list in order, real
names, pseudonymes and ips. It is much cleaner and
easier to read.
--------
Now, I have another question. Why asking in the
preferences the real name of the editor ? What is that
point of it ?
*If people want to edit under their real name, they
can create an account with their real name. They do
not need two areas, one for a pseudonyme that is their
real name and another for the same real name
*If they do not want to have their name displayed
everywhere, they can have a pseudonyme and place their
real name on their user page
*If they do not want their real name to be displayed
at all, they just have a pseudonyme.
What is the sense to have a pseudonyme to hide a real
name, if the real name is displayed in the
contributors list to an article ?
Why the second field ?
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
>>much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
>>protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
>>the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
>>conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
>>descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.
>>
>>
>"light", "crisp", and "refreshing" are simply descriptive terms,
>but "light, crsip, refreshing" is a distinctive phrase used by Pepsi.
>So that latter may be a trademark even if the former is not.
>
Well, if Pepsi had invented a term like "crsip", I'd certainly be open
to considering that a trademark. And I'm aware of the argument that you
can combine otherwise purely descriptive terms into a trademark.
Personally, I don't buy it in this situation. Besides, I suspect Pepsi
might also try to discourage anyone marketing a soft drink as "crisp and
refreshing", or "refreshing, crisp, and light".
>Still, since NOUIAL (neither of us is a lawyer), we won't get very far
>arguing about whether this particular phrase will work or not.
>
I only said I wasn't a trademark examiner. But yes, the argument can't
produce a definitive ruling on the question, because neither of us is a
federal judge.
>>Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
>>application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
>>registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
>>application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
>>good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.
>>
>>
>Another possibility: Their lawyers don't see a reason to do so.
>You seem to be implicitly assuming that an unregistred trademark
>doesn't do Pepsi any good.
>
I agree that I've made an implicit assumption, but your identification
of it is wrong. My assumption is that a registered trademark would
benefit Pepsi more than an unregistered trademark. We may not
necessarily agree about how much benefit registration brings, but I hope
you're not trying to argue that registration doesn't do *any* good. My
point is that if you file an application and get rejected, that's a
pretty good argument that you don't actually have a trademark. So the
analysis I'm attributing to Pepsi's lawyers is this - that the marginal
benefit of registration is outweighed by the risk of having registration
denied.
I am not trying to argue that an unregistered trademark is worthless. I
apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused in that regard. And
in pushing the idea of registering our trademarks, I do not mean to
suggest that we shouldn't also take other available steps to protect them.
Finally, Toby Bartels also wrote:
>With both names and jurisdictions, our determination of what is critical
>should be based on the specific legal needs that present themselves to us.
>For example, if PhatNav refuses to respect our trademark without legal action,
>then we'll need to register the terms that PhatNav is infriniging upon
>in whatever jurisdiction will have the greatest effect upon PhatNav.
>And if PhatNav is the first immediate problem, then that would determine
>what and where we register first.
>
A trademark application takes considerable time to process (up to a year
and sometimes longer in the US, I don't know about Europe). And of
course, lawsuits can take a long time too, if it comes to that. So while
the facts on the ground are important, I think an important reason to
register trademarks is to anticipate what people may do in the future.
We shouldn't just wait for problems to come to us.
--Michael Snow
Angela wrote:
>There are problems with posting to this list from
>gmane, so I'm sending this on behalf of Anthere and
>Jamesday.
>
Is it a general problem, or specific to this list? I at least didn't
have any trouble reading it there. It's hard enough getting people to
use the right mailing list around here without there being technical
obstacles.
>Anthere supports what Michael is saying about the need
>to register trademarks, and would like to know if
>anyone has made any estimates of the cost of doing
>this in each country. Basically, has any overall
>amount been calculated?
>
The last time this came up, somebody indicated that the fee in Germany
was 300 euros. I haven't confirmed this, but it was also stated that
registration would be valid for the entire EU. If so, presumably the fee
would be the same whether we registered in Germany, France, or someplace
else? I would still register in the US first, because the foundation is
based in the US.
The 335 US dollars is a filing fee to apply for registration of a single
trademark, and I'm guessing 300 euros is the same thing. The more
trademarks we want to register, the more it might cost us. Of all our
possible trademarks, I think Wikipedia is the most critical, so we
should probably start there and then consider the others.
Additionally, Toby mentions (based on our own content) that attorney
fees for filing the application could be $800 to $1500. But I think
Jimbo might decide to see if somebody will do it pro bono, since
Wikimedia is a nonprofit.
>Jamesday has suggested that registering the trademarks
>are probably not really needed for protection as the
>name is quite well known now. For domain names, the
>uniform domain name dispute policy requires that the
>name be registered and used in good faith. Stealing a
>Wikipedia name is bad faith and makes any site likely
>to lose.
>
I'm not sure that I agree with Jamesday as to how well known we are yet.
In certain circles, yes, but we're only starting to really get
mainstream media coverage, and Wikipedia is hardly a household name
offline. I may be misunderstanding his point here, since it's filtered
through Angela, but the purpose of trademark registration would be more
than just to keep somebody from using, say, wikipedia.fr as a domain name.
--Michael Snow
"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske(a)web.de> schrieb:
> If the GFDL really requires that list *on the same document* (can't be
> really the same page, think printed version again), can't we declare the
> whole wikipedia as one giant document in itself? [Translation to
> legalese would be required]
The GFDL really requires that; furthermore, it specifies _where_ in the
document it must be:
"List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."
Where title page is defined as:
"The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text."
Thus, the GNU/FDL not only requires us to put the 5 main authors on the page, it requires us to
put the last author plus the 5 main authors of the previous version directly under the title of the
page. Calling the whole thing a single document, it means we have to do so on the Main Page
at least.
Andre Engels
Of course, typo, I meant "of course, we know we
*can't* define the 5 main contributors" :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover