[Atp] Re: AT Protocol Trademark

["Emelia S." <[e-mail]>]

If all other options fail, maybe it'd be worth setting up a lightweight AT Protocol Foundation (maybe under linux foundation or similar stewarding org) that holds the trademark + atproto.com <http://atproto.com/> domain?

It would of course be more work, but could then be governed by some process, similar to PLC's new entity (with the difference that this could just be a US 501(c)-something).

— Emelia

> On 17 Jul 2026, at 18:09, Bryan Newbold <bryan=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I would also be in favor of IPMC ownership of the trademark if it is an option. Happy to talk to folks about this in Vienna next week (I arrive Tuesday late).
> 
> --bryan
> 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 7:28 AM Daniel Holmgren <daniel=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Ah thanks for chiming in Wendy!
>> 
>> I expect it's a bit early to get into details. But it's reassuring to hear that this might be in the class of things that the IPMC can help with. Is there any prior art for protocol trademarks that are held by the IPMC?
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 4:06 PM Wendy Seltzer <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> As an IPMC director, I'm happy to take questions about the IETF Trust (now IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation <https://www.ietf-ipm.org/about/>). 
>>> 
>>> I imagine the board would want to discuss at what stage of standards development it could be appropriate to accept trademarks, since our core purpose is to support the Internet standards process. (More than copyrights, trademarks incur some maintenance obligations, so it's not as simple to say we'll take anything.)
>>> 
>>> --Wendy
>>> 
>>> On July 17, 2026 6:17:58 AM PDT, Daniel Holmgren <daniel=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> >That would be ideal in my opinion. Though my understanding is that that
>>> >isn't the intended purpose of the IETF Trust. It's more for IETF-specific
>>> >marks (like "IETF" for instance) than marks for the protocols themselves.
>>> >I'll poke around and try to get a clearer answer.
>>> >
>>> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 3:13 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 6:09 AM Maxine S. Fritz <max=2Bietf=
>>> >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Daniel Holmgren <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote on 2026-07-17 08:02:02
>>> >>> -0500:
>>> >>> > Bluesky is also interested in having another entity (other than
>>> >>> Bluesky) hold and enforce the
>>> >>> > trademark. Though, for practicality's sake, since Bluesky PBC purchased
>>> >>> the mark and wants to
>>> >>> > provide protection as soon as possible, Bluesky currently holds and
>>> >>> enforces it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Has the IETF Trust (<https://trustee.ietf.org/>) been considered as a
>>> >>> potential long-term holder
>>> >>> of the ATPROTOCOL trademark? This seems like the natural choice for an
>>> >>> independent entity
>>> >>> responsible for the trademark corresponding to an IETF standard.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I think this would be a good idea.  Absent this, I think that we should
>>> >> consider renaming the
>>> >> IETF version of the protocol.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Ekr
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Atp mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >>
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Wendy Seltzer
>> _______________________________________________
>> Atp mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> Atp mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]