[steering-discuss] Approval of our Trademark Policy

Bernhard Dippold wrote:

As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be
reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO)
aside for the moment.

Hi Bernhard, all,

well maybe - but maybe we should beforehand try to reach mutual
agreement on what we want to achieve (unless we want to go back &
change the trademark policy, possibly) -

Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph:

Hm, I don't think that really clears things up enough?

When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called
LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at
least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the
logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified".

Yes, and

> * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
> * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"

It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above:
"Individual community members and other people referring to our
product and the community should use the logo without the subline."
>
> As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially
>unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the
>LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy
>says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too.

That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here.

The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it
contains the "substantially unmodified binaries".

But in the description of this product, references to the community,
merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF
subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF.

And this is not clearly separated at all, I'm afraid. The catch is
that there's a very fuzzy border between a splash screen (being
permitted to display TDF), and a screenshot on a box (*not* being
permitted to display TDF, if handed out by a mere community member,
if I interpret you right?)

No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they
aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the
wordmarks.

I think that was Michael's issue - with the link to the logo
guidelines, they actually affect each other, legally. :wink:

So if you're ok that if in doubt, the Trademark rules are the
authoritative ones (i.e. I don't want to revisit them, should we
later discover they contradict the intended logo guidelines), then
I'd agree with your proposal to remove the link to the logo
guidelines and approve the trademark rules as-is.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi,

I turned this discussion inside out in my mind, and I think that we can
perhaps work it out if we ask a different question.
We all agree on the TM policy itself (we do, I think). There is but one
detail concerning the use of the TDF subline in a logo that is understood as
somewhat different (or not). The reason we have this discussion is that we,
or at least a majority of us believe that TDF itself on a logo should not be
used that easily.

So the question is: does the TM policy in abstracto give enough protection
to all of our trademarks, logos etc? If not, can we insert some additional
languages?

Hope this helps,

Charles.

Hi,

sorry for stepping in so late on this, the last days have been a bit busy with off-TDF things. :slight_smile:

I've lost plot a bit: Is there a formal vote running now, or do we need to clarify the situation with regards to the TDF tagline?

Florian

Hi,

Hi,

sorry for stepping in so late on this, the last days have been a bit
busy with off-TDF things. :slight_smile:

I've lost plot a bit: Is there a formal vote running now, or do we
need to clarify the situation with regards to the TDF tagline?

there's no more formal running vote. We're discussing on what to do
with respect to the TDF trademark itself and the TDF subline. My last
post was asking the following question: If we agree on the TM policy in
general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark
need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM
already cover its usage?

Best,

Hi Charles,

there's no more formal running vote. We're discussing on what to do
with respect to the TDF trademark itself and the TDF subline. My last
post was asking the following question: If we agree on the TM policy in

I agree, and thanks a lot for drafting and pushing it forward! Just one remark: Legally, we should maybe mention "Referred to 'TDF' in this document", rather than "short 'TDF'", as the latter one might create the impression "TDF" is our trademark as well, which it isn't.

I also would change "widespread use of TDF trademarks" to "widespread use of our trademarks", as the former one might raise the impression people should use the TDF subline as much as possible, which they shouldn't. This term, "TDF trademarks", occurs more often, and probably all should be replaced by "our trademarks", to make it clear and avoid confusion.

We should also add a separate paragraph "Contact", where we sum up the contact possibilities. In addition to the e-mail address, we should also add a fax number. Feel free to use mine, which is currently also registered with the trademark office, as I'm the legal representant of OOoDeV: +49 8341 99660889 (we will this replace then later on with the official TDF fax number)

The sentence "Trademarks are not just TDF logos but also the names of its various products and projects, as well as the names documentfoundation.org and libreoffice.org among others (also called word marks), and are collectively referred to as “TDF Trademarks”." is wrong. The only thing generally registered as trademark or being filed is "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation", solely as word mark. No logos, no URLs and the like. These can, however, be covered by copyright or competition law, and we should add a sentence. Sorry for being so touchy here, but in some countries claiming TMs you don't have is even a crime.

Legally, we should also avoid saying at the moment that the trademarks belong to TDF, as legally, they belong to OOoDeV. However, if this policy will be put in place only as soon as the foundation legally exists, leave it in the draft. In that case, don't worry about my fax number, rather wait until we have our own office or contact point. :slight_smile:

general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark
need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM
already cover its usage?

It is indeed a bit confusing. In the beginning, we talk about LibO and TDF trademarks, but then we have this paragraph: "TDF Trademarks should be used in their exact form, neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words. TDF has a set of acceptable logos for general use. If you are not sure where they are please inquire on our lists. Only the logos that bear the exact mention of the software name with the mention “The Document Foundation” are reserved for the sole and official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash screens from software builds compiled by the Document Foundation or DVD labels officially stemming from the Document Foundation. You may not use this set of logos but only the logos bearing the software name without the Document Foundation's mention."

I think Michael raised these concerns already and wanted to legally check it. Michael, any results?

Sorry for jumping in so late... although this mail is rather long, I think the points addressed are just minor and do not touch the general intention of the TM policy. :slight_smile:

Florian

Hi guys,

> general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark
> need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM
> already cover its usage?

It is indeed a bit confusing. In the beginning, we talk about LibO and
TDF trademarks, but then we have this paragraph: "TDF Trademarks should
be used in their exact form, neither abbreviated nor combined with any

  Right :slight_smile:

I think Michael raised these concerns already and wanted to legally
check it. Michael, any results?

  Nope; and I couldn't share any such advice as you know :slight_smile: But I think
the points I raised were obvious enough even to an IANAL type such as
myself.

Sorry for jumping in so late...

  Ditto, I've been buried.

  Personally - I would be well up for getting the trademark policy out in
its earlier form before we started to try to get the logo distinction
included.

  IMHO - we have everything we want to stop crazies pretending to be us
by clearly forbidding:

  "2. In any way that indicates a greater degree of association
      between you and TDF than actually exists".

  I would suggest that we remove the in-text reference to the Logo page;
and yet have a clear statement on the separate Logo page, and perhaps
add a FAQ type link at the bottom ("does using a TDF logo indicate an
association with the project?") that says something like:

  "Using a Logo with 'The Document Foundation' sub-line without being
officially recognised as part of TDF idicates a degree of association
that is closer than actually exists, and is therefore in breach of our
trademark guidelines". "Please use the non-TDF mark in its place in its
place etc. etc. ... "

  That is a helpful clarification I think.

  I'd like to recommend keeping the other bits until we have a foundation
and employed counsel that can advise us on this; but I would also like
to further advise that legal advice is deadly expensive, and usually
extremely vague - handing you the same risks back again; and we have
(perhaps) better things to spend our money on :wink:

  My feeling is also that we should fix the over-concern and distinction
of "trademarks" from other marks, and restore the original "Marks"
language that was a result of better advice.

  So - in short with a few cleans and I'm happy :slight_smile:

  HTH,

    Michael.

Hi there,

that's hopefully the last time we do this.
After some discussion here and there it became clear that Mike's latest
proposal (insert some text and keep the existing policies) was the
easiest and the best one.

I have thus taken Michael's input and adapted it to our existing
proposal. In substance, the TM policy itself *hasn't changed* I simply
added one more link in the text to our logo guideline.

Our logo guideline got a new paragraph at its beginning explaining
clearly the use of the TDF mention.

See here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy#Non_Permitted_Use
and the logo policy:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy

Voilà. SC members, feel free to vote again, or shout (but for the very
last time).

Best,

Hi Charles, all

while I'm fine with the TM policy, I think there should be one more
case mentioned in the logo policy:

Charles M. Schultz wrote

Hi there,

that's hopefully the last time we do this.

When you keep your eye on the Trademark policy, voting should be possible...

[...]

Our logo guideline got a new paragraph at its beginning explaining
clearly the use of the TDF mention.

The Logo Policy doesn't cover the use case that TDF wants to present the
logo with subline on an external resource - as officially supported reference
to LibreOffice and The Document Foundation.

Do you want to include such use:
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/libreoffice/
in the policy?

Or is it already covered and I didn't see it?

Best regards

Bernhard

Hello Bernhard,

Hi Charles, all

while I'm fine with the TM policy, I think there should be one more
case mentioned in the logo policy:

Charles M. Schultz wrote

> Hi there,
>
> that's hopefully the last time we do this.

When you keep your eye on the Trademark policy, voting should be
possible...

> [...]
>
> Our logo guideline got a new paragraph at its beginning explaining
> clearly the use of the TDF mention.

The Logo Policy doesn't cover the use case that TDF wants to present
the logo with subline on an external resource - as officially
supported reference to LibreOffice and The Document Foundation.

Do you want to include such use:
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/libreoffice/
in the policy?

Or is it already covered and I didn't see it?

It is implicitly covered :slight_smile:

Best,
Charles.

Hi Charles,

I have thus taken Michael's input and adapted it to our existing
proposal. In substance, the TM policy itself *hasn't changed* I simply
added one more link in the text to our logo guideline.

  Looks good; we still talk exclusively about Trademarks, where I would
really prefer 'Marks' to be used everywhere (as it was at the
beginning). IMHO that separation was introduced to try to create a new
category for logos, and I don't believe we want that.

  The exemplary pointer right in the middle of the hard rules is odd. Our
guidelines are extremely practical :wink: so I would say:

- (see our simplified logo policy for more practical information)
+ (see our simplified logo policy for some examples)

  I would also remove the blurb at the beginning.

  "While this document covers the topics related to Trademark
   Policy, you may find more practical information about our
   logos and how to use them here."

  as part of that too; no need for two links.

  Otherwise, with that included, I'm for approving this this as the best
I can persuade you to iterate to as of now without advice to back me up,
IANAL etc. :wink:

  HTH,

    Michael.

Hello,

Hi Charles,

> I have thus taken Michael's input and adapted it to our existing
> proposal. In substance, the TM policy itself *hasn't changed* I
> simply added one more link in the text to our logo guideline.

  Looks good; we still talk exclusively about Trademarks, where
I would really prefer 'Marks' to be used everywhere (as it was at the
beginning). IMHO that separation was introduced to try to create a new
category for logos, and I don't believe we want that.

  The exemplary pointer right in the middle of the hard rules
is odd. Our guidelines are extremely practical :wink: so I would say:

- (see our simplified logo policy for more practical information)
+ (see our simplified logo policy for some examples)

  I would also remove the blurb at the beginning.

  "While this document covers the topics related to Trademark
   Policy, you may find more practical information about our
   logos and how to use them here."

  as part of that too; no need for two links.

  Otherwise, with that included, I'm for approving this this as
the best I can persuade you to iterate to as of now without advice to
back me up, IANAL etc. :wink:

So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text
according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like
to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon
Foundation time.

Best,
Charles.

Perfect ! :slight_smile: not that I have a vote, but I'm casting my non-vote for
it :slight_smile:

  Thanks Charles !

    Michael.

Let put this one to bed finally, +1.

C.

+1 as well, Italo

ah I think it needs some more of...
Just kidding.

+1, of course.

Hi all,

Hello,

[...]So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text

according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like
to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon
Foundation time.

+1

and thanks Charles for your work on this

Kind regards
Sophie

Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text
according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like
to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon
Foundation time.

Looks perfect to me, thanks a lot - +1!

-- Thorsten

Hi,

-------- Original-Nachricht --------

Von: "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>

So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text
according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like
to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon
Foundation time.

+1

André

Hi Charles,

Voilà. SC members, feel free to vote again, or shout (but for the very
last time).

thanks a lot for managing this, and for your patience. +1 to the policy.

Just one small thing: Legally, marks do currently *not* belong to TDF, as TDF does not exist. They legally belong to OOoDeV, but I would waive the necessity to mention that until either OOoDeV has renamed itself (the annual meeting will decide on that in April), or TDF legally exists.

Another mark: Maybe we should add a version and/or a date to the TM policy, so we know which version people refer to. Like "TM policy as of 2011-03-29"

And then a note: Google has locked our two marks for use in advertising, so I hope this will limit the amount of fraudulent sites. Anyone seeking permission to use these marks in advertising can also contact the legal@ alias and we can decide on exceptions. I want things to be as easy as possible.

Florian

Hello Florian,

Hi Charles,

> Voilà. SC members, feel free to vote again, or shout (but for the
> very last time).

thanks a lot for managing this, and for your patience. +1 to the
policy.

Just one small thing: Legally, marks do currently *not* belong to
TDF, as TDF does not exist. They legally belong to OOoDeV, but I
would waive the necessity to mention that until either OOoDeV has
renamed itself (the annual meeting will decide on that in April), or
TDF legally exists.

OK, but then the TM policy is adopted anyway... :slight_smile:

Another mark: Maybe we should add a version and/or a date to the TM
policy, so we know which version people refer to. Like "TM policy as
of 2011-03-29"

there's the date on the wiki that's automatically there, with the
revision, etc.

And then a note: Google has locked our two marks for use in
advertising, so I hope this will limit the amount of fraudulent
sites. Anyone seeking permission to use these marks in advertising
can also contact the legal@ alias and we can decide on exceptions. I
want things to be as easy as possible.

+1, thanks for handling this!

TM Policy ADOPTED!

Best,
Charles.