*cough* Wikilegal-l
Erik wrote:
(Note that the name Wikipedia has neither a TM nor an (R) next to it.)
Just as copyright exists even in the absence of a (C) symbol, a TM is not needed to create a trademark. For a trademark to exist it has to be used for a specific purpose. We certainly use the "Wikipedia" name and, if needed, can even register it with whatever nation's trademark office we see fit.
Are we on solid enough legal ground with an "unregistered trademark" to send nastygrams to some guys in Russia?
Nobody proposed sending nasty grams. We should, of course, exhaust all non-legal options before using the law to protect the Wikipedia brand name.
I highly doubt it...
Sorry, but you are clearly wrong on this point.
Trademarks are evil enough as it is.
No they aren't; the improper use of trademark law to beat others into submission after they (without malice and unknowingly) violated a trademark is the only thing that is evil here. I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm suggesting that we negotiate with the Wikipedia.ru people, simply state, as fact, what the law is and if and only if they refuse to budge then we can fall back on exercising our legal rights.
The Wikipedia brand is a very important assest for Wikimedia; we should not stand idly by while others create confusion about what Wikipedia is and also drag our good name down into the gutter.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel-
Just as copyright exists even in the absence of a (C) symbol, a TM is not needed to create a trademark.
It's not quite that simple. Unregistered trademarks are a concept only acknowledged by some legislations (while unregistered copyright is acknowledged by all), and even in these countries, there may be precedent law that the plaintiff has better grounds for claiming grievance when he has announced his intention to file, or at least publicized the trademark as such. This is the reason why companies do add the [TM] to their names, after all.
Nobody proposed sending nasty grams. We should, of course, exhaust all non-legal options before using the law to protect the Wikipedia brand name.
I don't think we should use the law at all.
I highly doubt it...
Sorry, but you are clearly wrong on this point.
Then cite from the Russian civil code or from Russian precedents the relevent passages that show that Russian law acknowledges unregistered trademarks. You don't know if it does? Then how can you claim that I am "clearly" wrong?
Trademarks are evil enough as it is.
No they aren't; the improper use of trademark law to beat others into submission after they (without malice and unknowingly) violated a trademark is the only thing that is evil here.
Using trademarks to restrain non-commercial activity is always wrong -- non-commercial groups are no real threat to us or our brand. If these Russians are actually making money off our brand, that is another matter. But they registered the domain first, we have never registered a trademark, you don't even know if Russia allows unregistered trademarks, so it would be morally wrong and possibly illegal to threaten them for using our name. We can ask them nicely to point the domain to ru.wikipedia.org. But if they don't, that's about it. In any case, Jimbo needs to approve any actions that are taken.
Regards,
Erik
From: "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de
Using trademarks to restrain non-commercial activity is always wrong --
Sorry this is clearly cofused thinking. Trademarks can be used to restrain the misattribution of non-commercial activity. Trademark infringment laws do not restrain commerce, they prevent people from using the marks that identify the product of another. If they remove the trademark there is no restraint. Trademark law only restains the use of trademarks, nothing else. Non commercial groups have just as much right to these things, take the Olympics for example, should everyone be allowed to name a sports competition after the Olympics? Allow that will make people very confused. Ultimately it is about protecting the general public, more so with nonprofits, than protecting proprietary interests..
non-commercial groups are no real threat to us or our brand. If these Russians are actually making money off our brand, that is another matter.
They are posting links to porno web sites. Are they doing that for free? Maybe all the Wikipedia's should do that, we might get more hits that way! (just joking)
But they registered the domain first, we have never registered a trademark, you don't even know if Russia allows unregistered trademarks,
It has nothing to do with trademark law in Russia. It is a domain name registration that is covered by ICANN and WIPO. Let's stop talking about trademarks it is not about that primarily.
so it would be morally wrong and possibly illegal to threaten them for using our name. We can ask them nicely to point the domain to
ru.wikipedia.org.
This is also not true. You don't have to threaten them. Just bring a complaint with WIPO>
But if they don't, that's about it. In any case, Jimbo needs to approve any actions that are taken.
That is true, but one thing to keep in mind if you do nothing then you are encouraging the name of Wikipedia to be associated with click through links to pornographic web sites. Is that what an on line encyclopedia wants? I thought Boomis was keeping pornography and Wikipedia separate.
Alex756
Alex-
Using trademarks to restrain non-commercial activity is always wrong --
Sorry this is clearly cofused thinking.
I understand the law. I am talking about the morality behind it. Trademark law should not allow a trademark holder to punish non-commercial activity going on under their brand.
should everyone be allowed to name a sports competition after the Olympics?
Of course I should be allowed to start Erik's Garden Olympics or to call my open source game "Mega Olympics".
non-commercial groups are no real threat to us or our brand. If these Russians are actually making money off our brand, that is another matter.
They are posting links to porno web sites. Are they doing that for free?
I did not notice that. That changes my opinion about them.
It has nothing to do with trademark law in Russia. It is a domain name registration that is covered by ICANN and WIPO.
I am strongly morally opposed to using the UDRP process to hijack domain names registered by others. Both ICANN and WIPO are insufficiently controlled anti-speech organizations that are primarily acting in corporate and government interests. Cooperating with them is like registering a software patent for the MediaWiki software.
Don't get me wrong: If we had a trademark on the Wikipedia name, I would support going after those who violate this trademark in their commercial self-interest. But we don't. For this reason I do not think we have moral grounds to stop them from using the name "Wikipedia", even if we could hijack the domain name using UDRP. We didn't tell people in advance: 'Look, you can't use this name. It's ours.' I do not believe that we have some "natural right" to the name Wikipedia just because we've been operating under it for a while.
That is true, but one thing to keep in mind if you do nothing then you are encouraging the name of Wikipedia to be associated with click through links to pornographic web sites.
I'm not saying we should do nothing. I am saying we should ask them to hand over the name. If they don't do it voluntarily, we should ask them for the price they want. In the future, we should register a Wikipedia trademark, but we should not use it against those who do not act out of profit motives.
Regards,
Erik
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 02:22:09AM -0400, Alex R. wrote:
From: "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de
Using trademarks to restrain non-commercial activity is always wrong --
Sorry this is clearly cofused thinking. Trademarks can be used to restrain the misattribution of non-commercial activity. Trademark infringment laws do not restrain commerce, they prevent people from using the marks that identify the product of another. If they remove the trademark there is no restraint. Trademark law only restains the use of trademarks, nothing else. Non commercial groups have just as much right to these things, take the Olympics for example, should everyone be allowed to name a sports competition after the Olympics? Allow that will make people very confused. Ultimately it is about protecting the general public, more so with nonprofits, than protecting proprietary interests..
"Olympics" is a good example of USA-specific trademark. In Poland everyone can call anything "Olimpiada" and they often do.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org