[Foundation] Catching Up AND Foundation TM Again

Colin Madere colin at vedalabs.com
Wed May 23 12:12:23 CDT 2001


Jer,

I believe that your suggestion is what the community is looking for, and I
*think* your co-worker Mr. Bauer just suggested the same as a possiblity.
Here's me attempting to distill once again...

Jer's suggestion:
<snip>
> 
>  - Jabber.com assigns the TM to the Jabber.org Foundation
>  - Jabber.org is then responsible for assigning all 
> appropriate commercial
> uses that don't overlap and therefore implode the TM validity
>  - The immediate commercial use licenses would be to Jabber.com for:
>         "Jabber.com"
>         "Jabber Commercial Server"
>         "Jabber Instant Messenger"
>         (those are the ones I'm immediately aware of and have had
> considerable resources put into creating marketplace recognition of)
> 
> Additional licenses might be assigned by Jabber.org for 
> alternate uses by
> the companies that approach the Foundation, such as "JabberToons" or
> "Jabber Friends Network", etc. IANAL, but this seems very much in the
> spirit of TM law as much as I understand it, as long as the mark is
> managed appropriately (as we all seem agree it should, but by 
> the member based foundation instead of a commercial entity).
> 
> At this point I'm not sure what the other alternatives are.  I'm doubtful
> that any honest effort or "irrevocable use license" from jabber.com would
> be enough to gain the support and trust of the entire community in their
> role as TM holder, and the only other viable alternative so far would be
> to change the name, which effectively nullifies jabber.coms utility of the
> TM anyway.
<snip>

Bauer's suggestions:
(hopefully not misunderstood due to lack of context)

"At any rate, I think that's where Jabber.com stands right now.  Even if
there is a transfer of ownership the full restrictions would have to apply
to naming product or company names."

"Now, other companies could be licensed to use
the name in a company or product name but Jabber.com would reserve that
privilege as well even if there was a transfer.  That's what we originally
discussed in the ownership transfer and what is still being considered."

Mr. Bauer, in the paragraphs above, could you define "full restrictions" and
"the name" respectively?  I can guess "the name" means "Jabber", but I'd
rather you be explicit :)  It seems these two quotes from you _could_ be
conflicting and I want to clear it up.

I think what I see as the main possible difference is that Jer is suggesting
that j.c get's licenses (or whatever they may be called) for the current
names of their products and domain(s) that use the word "Jabber", whereas
Bauer *may* be suggesting that j.c get's a full license for any use of the
word "Jabber".  Feedback from you two?

Colin Madere
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20010523/f0fff6c5/attachment.html


More information about the Members mailing list