[Foundation] Possible Trademark workaround?????
howardryan at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 6 17:28:57 CST 2002
I'm not sure Jabber.com is keen on my suggestion.
Not sure my idea was in anyway to their best interest and I for one can tell you that Jabber.com, AND ANDRE have been KEY in allowing Jabcast and others to enter the Jabber space so, do not misconstrue my position...I just couldn't believe that over 100 email's badgered my inbox over a trademark issue that really doesn't add up to a hill of beans..IMHO. :-)
If Jabber.com wants to take my suggestion in anyway, fine. If not, fine as well. I was just making a neutral position.
Jabber.com definitely deserves some special notoriety for their great help to date. If a trademark is the case, fine.
Perhaps the ORG might be better off getting its own variation.
Again, I've already chimed in more then I should have. I am not intimately in-tune of all of this trademark stuff so....this is my last comment on the matter.
Bottom line... While the ORG trades JABS or Trademarks it would appear that other more pertinent issues need to be resolved.
I see JABBER climbing the charts in popularity. Jabcast is now endorsed by Compaq:
Jabber.com by Hewlett Packard and quite a few other biggies.
None of these deals are inhibited by logos or trademarks.
Sux if the whole world watches spats over a lousy trademark.
But I kinda understand the ORG's concern.
Go Jabber DOT ORG,
and any other DOT Jabber.
jankowski at bigwhoop.org wrote:
>From what I can tell from the USPTO site, the Jabber, Inc. Trademark on
the word "Jabber" is still "in the queue" so to speak. It was filed as
an Intent-to-use trademark in 2000, and has recently (Feb 28, 2002) been
approved by the USPTO. The next step is to publish it in the Official
Gazette of the Trademark Office - at which point it may be publicly
opposed for up to 30 days.
I believe there is a fee ($200, I think..) to oppose it. For commercial
entities who have a valid interest in branding their products/companies
with the "Jabber" mark, that is the appropriate time to oppose the mark.
Basically, if you can show that there is -not- "secondary meaning"
associated with the mark and Jabber, Inc. - and that common/prior use of
the mark is mainly to describe something else (ie- the protocol, the
open-source project, your dog, whatever...) your opposition would hold up.
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Barry G Lee wrote:
> Good idea, however at this point we need to hear out Jabber, Inc's position
> on their TM application and at that time we have something solid to talk
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members