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

[Alex R.]

From: "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
> Daniel-
> >> They did not hijack any registered trademark, and
> >> unregistered trademarks seem to be a US-specific
> >> thing.

There is a gray area there. Did you read that link to
the opposition of trademarks in the Russian system that
I previously posted?

ANYONE who uses a trademark can register it, yes,
but anyone else who uses it can also put up opposition.
All trademark registration systems,  allow for these kinds
of administrative or judicial review mechanisms.

Why? because registration is just a formality. the underlying
right to a trademark (if the jursidction recognizes so called
common law or not) can exists with or without registration.
You will note that the Russian registration opposition scheme
recognizes prior usage as a strong element in the nullification of
a registered mark.

> As for non-commercial violators, I understand that if we explicitly allow
> them to use our trademark (license them), instead of ignoring them, this
> will not dilute the mark.  Can anyone confirm if this is the case?

First, the idea that Wikipedia does not make money from Wikipedia
is wrong.  People are already making donations, those donations are
money.  Being non-commercial does not mean we are not entitled to
make money, or even sell things (I like to mention Oxford University
Press, they are non-commercial, part of a University, they make a lot
of money). The dichotomy between commercial and non-commercial
is mostly non-existent. We live in  a world where money is used for
everything, to show support, to give gifts, etc. legally _and_ morally
IMO no such distinction exists; the world is full of big businesses and
big charties. The international Red Cross has as much right to it
name as any fast food restaurant or soft drinnk. In fact, I would argue that
a charitable organization needs protection more so because of the
opportunity for individuals and groups to misuse the name of a charity
and take advantage of innocent members of the public that believe
they are giving donations to the legitimate or original charity.

 Why would anyone want to agree wth the licensing of a name
with a not-for-profit (yes not for profit, does not mean not for money)
if not for profit entities had no rights to their names?

Let them use the Wikipedia name, link to porno sites and even
accept donations (yes they can do that in Wikipedia's name if the
name is not protected with vigour). Wehn the word is out that Wikipedia
does not care about its name then someone will start a
Canadian Wikipedia, a Mexian Wikipedia, a Cayman Islands Wikipedia,
a Jersey Islands Wikipedia. Hey there can be a Wikimedia Foundation
in every state of the USA, Wikimedia Foundation of New York, Wikimedia
Foundation of California; and none of them will have anything to
do with any of the other Wikimedias or Wikipedias.

Hey, maybe someone wants to start an off shore Wikipedia Hotel
buy an estate in one of those off shore jurisdictions? Charge people
to go there and chill out with a T-3 connection. wi-fi  on the beach,
and if they want to start some porno sites and manage them with the
resources of the hotel, hey why not, nothing immoral with that, after
all Wikipedia doesn't care about the value of its name.

Why not, nothing immoral using the name of a non-commercial
group of people, just because they have world wide publicity,
someone should take advantage of it if they don't want to protect
the name.

Here is a useful case about the commercial hijacking of an internet
"relgious" name: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/domain/jfj.html

Alex756