Mailing List Archive

Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians)
2008/11/24 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com>:
> Yeah and, what Nathan probably meant: If a chapter ignores a
> termination message and keeps using the trademark, we would need to
> obtain an injunction in *their* country. Now, I think the Wikipedia
> trademark is not even registered internationally yet (it isn't in
> Switzerland, so I suppose it isn't in that many other countries
> either), so we'd run into problems. As a matter of fact, the chapter
> could just register the trademark in the country and unless the
> foundation was willing to really put up a court fight to get the
> trademark back, they could just ignore the termination notice.

That's an interesting question. What is the current trademark
situation for the WMF? A trademarks committee was set up nearly 3
years ago to advise the board on what trademarks to register and where
but it seems to have only lasted a few months before disbanding. There
is a page on meta ("Wikimedia Trademarks") that was marked as
historical over a year ago on which Angela said the details of the
trademarks were confidential, but that doesn't sound right - how can a
registered trademark be confidential? Doesn't it need to be public
knowledge in order to serve a purpose? The main reasons I can see in
old discussions for not registering everything and everywhere was that
it's expensive and time consuming, but we have a much larger budget
now (the discussions say the registration fee is $400 a time for the
US, which was a lot of money for the foundation 2 or 3 years ago, it
isn't now) and a full time staff (including a general counsel) which
it didn't have when the committee was set up. It would seem we can
reasonably register (and even, if necessary, defend) all our major
trademarks in at least those countries where we have significant
activity (in terms of readership, more than anything), so has this
been done?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians) [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/24 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com>:
>> Yeah and, what Nathan probably meant: If a chapter ignores a
>> termination message and keeps using the trademark, we would need to
>> obtain an injunction in *their* country. Now, I think the Wikipedia
>> trademark is not even registered internationally yet (it isn't in
>> Switzerland, so I suppose it isn't in that many other countries
>> either), so we'd run into problems. As a matter of fact, the chapter
>> could just register the trademark in the country and unless the
>> foundation was willing to really put up a court fight to get the
>> trademark back, they could just ignore the termination notice.
>
> That's an interesting question. What is the current trademark
> situation for the WMF? A trademarks committee was set up nearly 3
> years ago to advise the board on what trademarks to register and where
> but it seems to have only lasted a few months before disbanding. There
> is a page on meta ("Wikimedia Trademarks") that was marked as
> historical over a year ago on which Angela said the details of the
> trademarks were confidential, but that doesn't sound right - how can a
> registered trademark be confidential? Doesn't it need to be public
> knowledge in order to serve a purpose? The main reasons I can see in
> old discussions for not registering everything and everywhere was that
> it's expensive and time consuming, but we have a much larger budget
> now (the discussions say the registration fee is $400 a time for the
> US, which was a lot of money for the foundation 2 or 3 years ago, it
> isn't now) and a full time staff (including a general counsel) which
> it didn't have when the committee was set up. It would seem we can
> reasonably register (and even, if necessary, defend) all our major
> trademarks in at least those countries where we have significant
> activity (in terms of readership, more than anything), so has this
> been done?
>

Trademarks has been one of Mike's projects for a while now.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting question. What is the current trademark
> situation for the WMF?

I don't think permanent links into Madrid Express are supported, but
you can go here and search for "Wikimedia" under "mark":

http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/search/madrid/search-struct.jsp

"Wikimedia" was first registered in France and is now registered in a
dozen countries.

Note that there are some alternatives to having a registered trade
mark - for example, in the common law countries, the action of passing
off - which would likely protect the Wikimedia mark, known as it is
now globally.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians) [ In reply to ]
2008/11/24 Stephen Bain <stephen.bain@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's an interesting question. What is the current trademark
>> situation for the WMF?
>
> I don't think permanent links into Madrid Express are supported, but
> you can go here and search for "Wikimedia" under "mark":
>
> http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/search/madrid/search-struct.jsp
>
> "Wikimedia" was first registered in France and is now registered in a
> dozen countries.
>
> Note that there are some alternatives to having a registered trade
> mark - for example, in the common law countries, the action of passing
> off - which would likely protect the Wikimedia mark, known as it is
> now globally.

That's a very useful tool (if rather cryptic in its output), thank
you! If I'm reading it right, it looks like "Wikipedia" is registered
far more widely.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians) [ In reply to ]
> That's a very useful tool (if rather cryptic in its output), thank
> you! If I'm reading it right, it looks like "Wikipedia" is registered
> far more widely.

Actually, on a second glance, it seems to be registered in
Switzerland, despite Michael's claims otherwise. Michael, what was
your source for that? (Or did you mean "Wikimedia" when you said
"Wikipedia"?)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians) [ In reply to ]
On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> Trademarks has been one of Mike's projects for a while now.

That's right. A very large percentage of my time is devoted to
securing the commercially valuable trademarks we hold and expanding
the jurisdictions in which those trademarks are recognized.


--Mike





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter withoutWikimedians) [ In reply to ]
Mike Godwin wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
>>> Trademarks has been one of Mike's projects for a while now.
>>
>> That's right. A very large percentage of my time is devoted to
>> securing the commercially valuable trademarks we hold and expanding
>> the jurisdictions in which those trademarks are recognized.
>>
>>
>> --Mike

I don't want to seem naive but it is unclear to me how this applies to an
essentially non-profit organisation; if you can help me out with a link, I'd
be grateful. Thanks.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter withoutWikimedians) [ In reply to ]
Phil Nash wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
>>>> Trademarks has been one of Mike's projects for a while now.
>>> That's right. A very large percentage of my time is devoted to
>>> securing the commercially valuable trademarks we hold and expanding
>>> the jurisdictions in which those trademarks are recognized.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Mike
>
> I don't want to seem naive but it is unclear to me how this applies to an
> essentially non-profit organisation; if you can help me out with a link, I'd
> be grateful. Thanks.

Well, some non-profit organizations are run essentially as businesses
(charitable mission notwithstanding), often explicitly in for-profit
holding companies that are subsidiaries of the main organization. For
example, this is how the Mozilla Corporation operates, and enforces a
very aggressive trademark policy aimed at monetarily exploiting the
trademarks it holds.

On the other hand, Mozilla is a somewhat extreme case, and going down
that path had risks in terms of goodwill, also a valuable commodity for
donation- and volunteer-driven nonprofits.

I would personally hope that our main interest in the trademarks is not
their commercial value, but their usefulness in furthering our stated
charitable mission, by reducing confusion on the part of potential users
and reusers of our content.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter withoutWikimedians) [ In reply to ]
Phil Nash writes:

> I don't want to seem naive but it is unclear to me how this applies
> to an
> essentially non-profit organisation; if you can help me out with a
> link, I'd
> be grateful. Thanks.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you under the impression
that non-profit organizations, e.g. the Red Cross, don't have
commercially valuable trademarks, and don't protect them?

What gives you that impression?


--Mike





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter withoutWikimedians) [ In reply to ]
Delirium wrote:
> Phil Nash wrote:
>
>> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Trademarks has been one of Mike's projects for a while now.
>>>>>
>>>> That's right. A very large percentage of my time is devoted to
>>>> securing the commercially valuable trademarks we hold and expanding
>>>> the jurisdictions in which those trademarks are recognized.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Mike
>>>>
>> I don't want to seem naive but it is unclear to me how this applies to an
>> essentially non-profit organisation; if you can help me out with a link, I'd
>> be grateful. Thanks.
>>
> Well, some non-profit organizations are run essentially as businesses
> (charitable mission notwithstanding), often explicitly in for-profit
> holding companies that are subsidiaries of the main organization. For
> example, this is how the Mozilla Corporation operates, and enforces a
> very aggressive trademark policy aimed at monetarily exploiting the
> trademarks it holds.
>
> On the other hand, Mozilla is a somewhat extreme case, and going down
> that path had risks in terms of goodwill, also a valuable commodity for
> donation- and volunteer-driven nonprofits.
>
> I would personally hope that our main interest in the trademarks is not
> their commercial value, but their usefulness in furthering our stated
> charitable mission, by reducing confusion on the part of potential users
> and reusers of our content.
>
The benefit of trademarks for us has two aspects. One is that trademarks
identify the projects - ultimately, trademarks exist to identify - which
serves to minimize confusion for the general public. That's the
fundamental reason for having trademarks, protecting the names
associated with our mission.

The second aspect is that our trademarks also have commercial value, as
noted. What may not be immediately apparent is that this value isn't
necessarily correlated with maximizing trademark income (the profit
motive, or exploitation if you like). In fact, I'd submit that quite a
bit of the value in our trademarks is due to our nonprofit status and
mission. So when Mike talks about securing commercially valuable
trademarks, this is as much about protecting them (from others trying to
make money off them, either abusively without permission or
detrimentally by taking advantage of us) as it is about making money
from them ourselves.

It may help to realize that our emphasis is not on proactively seeking
ways to license our trademarks to bring in revenue. In reality, we're
not lacking in proposals, but more time is spent turning them down even
though they might be lucrative, because they're not appropriate for what
we do. If we can bring in funds to support the mission through trademark
licensing, that helps, but it's the only reason to do so. Considerations
of trademark value are secondary to their function as it relates to the
mission.

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's a very useful tool (if rather cryptic in its output), thank
>> you! If I'm reading it right, it looks like "Wikipedia" is registered
>> far more widely.
>
> Actually, on a second glance, it seems to be registered in
> Switzerland, despite Michael's claims otherwise. Michael, what was
> your source for that? (Or did you mean "Wikimedia" when you said
> "Wikipedia"?)

Very interesting, to say the least.
CH is in the list column of (834) entries, and clicking on the 834
gave me "(834): Designations under the Madrid Protocol by virtue of
Article 9sexies"

Now I looked up article 9sexies, which reads as follows:

"Article 9sexies
Safeguard of the Madrid (Stockholm) Agreement
(1) Where, with regard to a given international application or a given
international registration, the
Office of origin is the Office of a State that is party to both this
Protocol and the Madrid (Stockholm)
Agreement, the provisions of this Protocol shall have no effect in the
territory of any other State that is also
party to both this Protocol and the Madrid (Stockholm) Agreement.
(2) The Assembly may, by a three–fourths majority, repeal paragraph
(1), or restrict the scope of
paragraph (1), after the expiry of a period of ten years from the
entry into force of this Protocol, but not
before the expiry of a period of five years from the date on which the
majority of the countries party to the
Madrid (Stockholm) Agreement have become party to this Protocol. In
the vote of the Assembly only those
States which are party to both the said Agreement and this Protocol
shall have the right to participate."

if anyone can tell me, how this relates to whether the mark is now
registered in Switzerland or not, I'd be grateful.

My source was www.swissreg.ch, which is the official query tool of the
Swiss government (and also has an English interface, so you should be
able to use it as well)

I notice now, and I'm sorry for only noticing now, that they do not
include international registrations in this database, I just assumed
they would. Bah.

Well, I'm glad that at least Wikipedia and Wikimedia seem to be
somehow registered in Switzerland, but if anyone of the
trademark-savvies here (or someone with more time to research than I
have right now) can enlighten me on this "(834): Designations under
the Madrid Protocol by virtue of Article 9sexies"-thing, I'd be
grateful.

Michael

--

Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A localchapter withoutWikimedians) [ In reply to ]
Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Phil Nash writes:
>>
>>> I don't want to seem naive but it is unclear to me how this applies
>>> to an
>>> essentially non-profit organisation; if you can help me out with a
>>> link, I'd
>>> be grateful. Thanks.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you under the impression
>> that non-profit organizations, e.g. the Red Cross, don't have
>> commercially valuable trademarks, and don't protect them?
>>
>> What gives you that impression?
>>
>>
>> --Mike

No, put like that, it's obvious and I should have seen it. I am slow
sometimes.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians) [ In reply to ]
IANAL, but I would guess that would be something similar to the Berne Convention. But then again IANAL.  




________________________________
From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:54:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks (Was: A local chapter without Wikimedians)

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's a very useful tool (if rather cryptic in its output), thank
>> you! If I'm reading it right, it looks like "Wikipedia" is registered
>> far more widely.
>
> Actually, on a second glance, it seems to be registered in
> Switzerland, despite Michael's claims otherwise. Michael, what was
> your source for that? (Or did you mean "Wikimedia" when you said
> "Wikipedia"?)

Very interesting, to say the least.
CH is in the list column of (834) entries, and clicking on the 834
gave me "(834): Designations under the Madrid Protocol by virtue of
Article 9sexies"

Now I looked up article 9sexies, which reads as follows:

"Article 9sexies
Safeguard of the Madrid (Stockholm) Agreement
(1) Where, with regard to a given international application or a given
international registration, the
Office of origin is the Office of a State that is party to both this
Protocol and the Madrid (Stockholm)
Agreement, the provisions of this Protocol shall have no effect in the
territory of any other State that is also
party to both this Protocol and the Madrid (Stockholm) Agreement.
(2) The Assembly may, by a three–fourths majority, repeal paragraph
(1), or restrict the scope of
paragraph (1), after the expiry of a period of ten years from the
entry into force of this Protocol, but not
before the expiry of a period of five years from the date on which the
majority of the countries party to the
Madrid (Stockholm) Agreement have become party to this Protocol. In
the vote of the Assembly only those
States which are party to both the said Agreement and this Protocol
shall have the right to participate."

if anyone can tell me, how this relates to whether the mark is now
registered in Switzerland or not, I'd be grateful.

My source was www.swissreg.ch, which is the official query tool of the
Swiss government (and also has an English interface, so you should be
able to use it as well)

I notice now, and I'm sorry for only noticing now, that they do not
include international registrations in this database, I just assumed
they would. Bah.

Well, I'm glad that at least Wikipedia and Wikimedia seem to be
somehow registered in Switzerland, but if anyone of the
trademark-savvies here (or someone with more time to research than I
have right now) can enlighten me on this "(834): Designations under
the Madrid Protocol by virtue of Article 9sexies"-thing, I'd be
grateful.

Michael

--

Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l