From: "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com
Erik wrote:
Um, I'm not sure there even *is* a registered Wikipedia trademark, let alone in Russia. Until we have such a trademark, we can only ask them nicely to stop, but they're acting in full compliance with the law.
Trademarks do not have to be registered as Daniel correctly states. There is also the passing off issue. Basically trademarks and domain names are now overlapping areas of concern.
It has nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not a business. Here is a recent decision that dealt with the use of the name of a religious figure: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0248.html If you read the decision you will see that goods and services include such things as "Charitable services" and "meditation".
The advent of the Domain Name System has lead to attempts by trademark holders to take over domain names based on trade mark rights. Unlike a trademark, which is restricted by country and class of goods, domain names can be global and not limited by goods or service.
I do not know if this is a completely accurate statement of the law; but the problem is that Wikipedia.ru is using the name to publish an encyclopedia and ru.wikipedia.org What is the point of two Russian Wikipedia's or two German Wikipedia's. The problem with the Russian site is that it is not released under the GFDL. They use a bsd type of copyleft license: http://www.wikipedia.ru/wiki/license/bsd-doc.htm However, it is not completely clear that it is compatible with the GFDL. It requires a disclaimer and that disclaimer becomes viral because it MUST be incoporated into any subsequent texts I.e. if you want to give a greater warranty I am not sure you can, but I haven't examined that issue in much detail.
Perhaps they should be asked to reliquish the name. Do Wikipedians want to be associated with porno sites (at least one of the links from their main page link to a Russian porno site, and in Russia you do not need to limit such site access to adults, another liability issue for Wikipedia!
If they do not want to comply with Wikipedia standards it is simple enough to complain to the WTO. If WTO rules in Wikimedia's favor, they will have to relinquish the Wikipedia name. IMO Wikimedia has a good case, long history, lots of press both in the US and abroad.
So IMO we are on pretty solid legal grounds here even without the last paragraph (IMO, the last paragraph is a bit morally wrong and we shouldn't approach this matter via that route unless forced to do so).
I am not sure why it is morally wrong to try and keep the WIkipedia name associated with a high level of standardization. Non-profit organizations do get into trademark and unfair competition disputes, you would be suprised at how many churches want to prevent someone for misappropriating their name (I have researched the case law in this area).
Certainly it would be more considerate to try and settle the dispute with them, but I do not see why it is morally reprehensible to resort to legal recourses if Wikipedia standards are not upheld and someone wants to use the Wikipedia name.
Alex756