[Foundation-l] Wikipedia trade mark misuse

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 13 June 2010 23:33, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> If there is any party with dibs on "Wiki", that would
>> be Ward Cunningham, not the WMF.
>>     
>
> Trademark law does not include an automatic right to "dibs" on a mark
> to the first person to use it. (At least, it doesn't in the UK - I
> expect Czech law is similar.) What is important is what the public
> associate the mark with, and "Wiki" is very strongly associated with
> "Wikipedia". (A fun example: the trademark on police boxes is owned by
> the BBC and the police need the BBC's permission to use them in films
> and videos. That's because the public associates police boxes with
> Doctor Who much more strongly than with the police. The police clearly
> used them first, but that's not relevant.)
>
> Trademark law is a lot more complicated that you seem to think, so
> please stop guessing and leave it to the lawyers.
>
>   

I happen to know there is an English phrase "Doctor, heal
thyself."

You probably ANAL. But that doesn't stop you from FUDDing.

Tardises are antiquated visual whatchamacallits, but not
even remotely "trademarks".

You are claiming the law is complicated. But the facts are
plain and simple, and no amount of FUDD is going to support
a view that there is any reasonable justification (by moral
or juridifical standards) to claim WMF is the body to apply
for permission to use "wiki" on something. That just ain't
gonna happen, *nohow*. Sorry. That is just a fact. Don't try
to squirm.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen