Maveric149 wrote:
Erik (Eloquence) 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.
IIRC from my business law classes, registration is only needed before seeking actual legal action in court (just as with copyright infringement). But "Wikipedia" is still a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. That's why registered trademarks and plain old trademarks have different symbols to represent them.
IIRC (but not from a bona fide business law class), you must /use/ the symbol for a trade (or service) mark, even though you don't have to register it, to defend it. That is, you must put "TM" (or "SM") by your name to stake your claim. But you don't need the circled "R" -- and can't unless you register.
This is different from copyright law, where you need no circled "C".
IANAL but the ru.Wikipedia/Wikipedia.ru use does seem to cause a very real confusion as to what Russian "Wikipedia" is the actual one that is part of the Wikimedia family.
I agree. But are we defeding the name properly? It seems to me that we ought to stick up a "TM" (or "SM"?) posthaste! IANAL either, so let's hope that Alex speaks up.
[If we let wikipedia.ru go by] - we will have lost control of our trademark and IIRC once that happens we will not be able to regain control either legally or practically.
This is another difference from copyright law. A trademark must constantly be defended or it goes away. That's why there are "Webster's Dictionary"s all over the place, but only one "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" (the descendant of the original); they didn't defend "Webster's" for a while so lost the case when they started.
I suppose that if we fail to defend "Wikimedia" from wikimedia.de, then we'll lose the right to defend it from other random wikis; but we won't lose the right to defend it from other /encyclopaedias/. OTOH, since wikimedia.ru is a wiki encyclopaedia, it's all or nothing. But here I'm thinking logically, rather than legally, to hypothesise; so take it with a big grain of salt.
Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Corporation that sold a soft drink called "Coke" in red and white cans would clearly be guilty of trademark infringement,
(You're missing "[A] company other than" at the beginning here.)
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.
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 agree. Remember when Prema Toys sued a 12-year-old kid named "Pokey" over <pokey.org>? (They dropped legal action after bad publicity.)
-- Toby