[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Theo10011]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay <kkay at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> >> suit<
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
> >
>
> > I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
> > the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
>
>
> Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
>
>
> http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf
>
> It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf
>
> Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
>
>
> My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
>
>
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

IB's primary complaints stems from alleging Trademark infringement, and
unfair practices originating from such an infringement along with Civil
conspiracy.

I'm not sure why its alleging Trademark infringement against a volunteer,
perhaps through James' affiliation with Wikimedia Canada - which they might
consider to be an extension of WMF, and it should be pointed out and
clarified at some point. James' wouldn't be the legal owner of the fork
either way. In order, for it to have any basis, it would have to be
directed to the owner of the domain name, which would be WMF. But that's a
much harder battle, so this seems like intimidation.

The matter of forking and licensing issue aside, the issue of trademark
infringement seems separate and straightforward. The complaint related to
the Lanham Act, etc.-

43. Defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark confusingly similar to
Internet Brands’ Wikitravel trade name and trademarks for an identical and
related
website is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the
source,
business affiliation, connection or association of Defendants and their
website.

It would be a tall order to make that claim against WMF. It might even come
down to the "Wiki-" prefix.

Looking at the recent history of Wiki- prefixes (Wikileaks come to mind),
in addition to it making its way to the general lexicon. Is there a
sustainable long-term legal strategy when it comes to other party alleging
trademark or ownership of a "Wiki-" related domain in future? It hasn't
required much legal attention up till now but this seems to crop up year
after year.

Regards
Theo

P.S. Good Luck James. I'm sure you've been told already, this
complaint doesn't have much merit.