Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 15 June 2010 00:20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
You are claiming the law is complicated. But the facts are plain and simple, and no amount of FUDD is going to support a view that there is any reasonable justification (by moral or juridifical standards) to claim WMF is the body to apply for permission to use "wiki" on something. That just ain't gonna happen, *nohow*. Sorry. That is just a fact. Don't try to squirm.
Frankly, if we *could* try to claim a trademark on the word "wiki", we *shouldn't*. At most, ask the site nicely to note somewhere they're nothing to do with "Wikipedia."
I'm not suggesting we should claim a trademark on the word "wiki" (it wouldn't stand up). I'm suggesting that "wiki" when used as the name of an encyclopaedia is sufficiently similar to "Wikipedia" to cause confusion in the market (which is what trademarks are designed to prevent).
You are of course aware </sarcasm> that there are a remarkable range of encyclopaedia-like (even if limited in scope) projects not handled by WMF, which the WMF has excellent relations with, and no wish to "reduce confusion" with regard. Such as Wiki-Travel, Wikia, WikiHow, etc.
I have been accused before of using too strong language on this mailing list, so I will pointedly restrain myself here with a humongous effort.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen