On 11/28/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/05, Scott Keir scottkeir@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I'm sorry I couldn't be there yesterday - please could those who were there explain a bit more what the issue is/was with incorporating as "Wikimedia UK", as it is not clear to me from what's posted to date what the issues is/are. Otherwise we might suggest alternatives that fall prey to the same trap!
Basically, we want to trade (operate) as Wikimedia UK. However, we want to do so /by permission of the Foundation/ - they hold the name, and so we probably need their permission to avoid nasty legal tangles.
We can't incorporate as Wikimedia UK, though, because: a) the Foundation can't grant permission to use the name until the company exists b) if someone takes over the company later, by whatever means, we want the Foundation to be able to stop them using the Wikimedia name.
Yes, but I still don't get it. Are there, apart from this twist (a) that we have not resolved (which of the chicken or the egg...) any other /legal/ reasons why the company cannot be called Wikimedia UK? Because we could agree that the agreement to use the name be signed on the same day as the Company is founded for example, or signed between the founders of Wikimedia UK and the Foundation, to be carried on to the organisation etc. There are many ways to do that I am sure.
OK for b), although I believe that is a double edge thing. If the company Tralala (since it's not Wikimedia UK ;-) ) is taken over, and they're in trade/partnership/whatever with someone/a company/an organisation, it seems harder to me for the Wikimedia Foundation to claim anything from this company. Whereas being able to take the name away makes it harder for Tralala to continue any trade in the name of the Wikisomethingorother.
So I ask my question again, are there any other legal implications that I might not be aware of that *really* prevent the company from being called Wikimedia UK?
Cheers,
Delphine -- ~notafish