[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia.ru & Wikimedia.de

[Alex R.]

From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at 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