Looking at the new branding survey on meta, i'm struck by the fact that "Wikibooks" isn't trademarked. Is it an error that it's trademark simply wasnt listed on the page with the rest, or is the name simply not trademarked at all?
Not having that name is a little scary to me because an external entity could take it and demand that we quit using it. I know some people are interested in rebranding, but that should be an internal decision, not a hostile external one.
--Andrew Whitworth
_________________________________________________________________ Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? Youll love Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr...
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Looking at the new branding survey on meta, i'm struck by the fact that "Wikibooks" isn't trademarked. Is it an error that it's trademark simply wasnt listed on the page with the rest, or is the name simply not trademarked at all?
Not having that name is a little scary to me because an external entity could take it and demand that we quit using it. I know some people are interested in rebranding, but that should be an internal decision, not a hostile external one.
--Andrew Whitworth
Agreed.
Previous lawyer considered the name was not original enough (too generic) to be trademarkable. The solution is to register name+logo at the same time. Which implies logo issue to be settled.
Ant
On 5/31/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:
Not having that name is a little scary to me because an external entity could take it and demand that we quit using it.
Not the case. Prior use is always AFAIK a defense against trademark infringement. What would be a problem is that we would have less of a case to stop someone else using the name and couldn't get nearly as much in the way of damages.
-Matt
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org