If the Czech Wikimedia things the newspaper is abusing of the 'wiki' concept to sell something that is not, and really wishes to do something about it, I recommend to contact "consumer protection" and present the case to them; it's a free services in all the countries I know.
You can claim that the newspaper is using a confusing concept to attract visitors seeking for collaborative information where there is none.
I don't think you can do anything else, and certainly not along the 'wiki' trademark/copyright path.
Good luck, MarianoC.-
--- El jue 17-jun-10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com escribió:
De: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia trade mark misuse Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: jueves, 17 de junio de 2010, 8:39 On 17 June 2010 11:37, Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 17:25, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote many things.
My sidenote is that if you believe in what you say
then you imply
Wikipedia, Wikimedia and everything we have with
'wiki' string in it,
and every method we use which described as 'wiki-way
of web
publishing' violates Ward's intellectual rights since
it was him who
first used the word, who conjured up the method and
made it known.
We're not talking about patents; we're talking about trademarks. Who conjured up the method is completely irrelevant, as I have already explained. This complete lack of understanding of trademark law is precisely why people shouldn't be trying to guess whether something is a violation or not. I have not once claimed that it is a violation. I have said that it might be one. That is the most I can say with my level of understanding of the relevant law and it is clear I have far more understanding of the relevant law than anyone else in this discussion.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l