On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro(a)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).