IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] Logo/Trademark conflict

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Wed, 10 April 2019 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.com>
X-Original-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FBDA1203D3 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kM30b47ZDqjG for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EA0F1203CE for <bimi@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id t17so3640224wrw.13 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IR3fZHt4XZb9ObDVtNGInxEQldmd4Q1DiuUnqB4k7D8=; b=RlVfTybQ9qZiHH7v8hyWBe6qvy94Y2I8CHc/4j/XpWnIi2lrcC0bsyIi/ZE+/WwPS8 tvI+EydIPTApxHSPQMlzIPO/mWIn8X7Y5ad2pTxQHpm/dm+RZ2OxLjgApCxGj12f6WD+ dpy9Qi/ReGCE0UvRwYNDNEibAhjmK9b93NeB2tyIjJr6SYU6nW1b1MgRktcqkHwwL0W3 v1lJQwDDpj0gjI3fgbZUvhlLEGISXhtO7sp+4IxB55MB7Oy1pPAXdep9Xf1ms9nEsGRR wm5BehfxypbEPZ+vcanHI7jgmaZkvCNznnRCS7bNm6BKn72wz2wzBPIo9Uuv9Ya8KhOs FbKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=IR3fZHt4XZb9ObDVtNGInxEQldmd4Q1DiuUnqB4k7D8=; b=kx+DAh4nfw53MLDQhR00amN0ft+Ipf+JcdeIA4E6huZTmRmagKuMkM+IKa3D9FsSer RjVfEYKZhy0I3bskTS6oTWFgHlj11W+m+YUUR9LCUGoDBPlk5+gs3iAfp27I8lNnsuId J81IH3K6hAfE8mp2K1iG8EnBp9kK5Dr0a08tJqqC6R0fKshERah1JK+Hn/TSIQW97hwp pMxzSEdy3Fif7cYMmDZzySy7Do7ZkuuwmTivy6VRJVJhVeRNiZbA+otRd0LFoOdElu+X zPkv1pH+s6aACIY+Tfm5AcNfZy4AD12xG6nU/Pw2zxRDrxelz+QG1NncLSlQ3/QjCRuw 3BFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWFwm+kOYWw+WTfWFWBkUtMfSTHws8bexOc1TapTq/nTu1ZJquZ hCQhja1/ds8BEwJcT6YUmGBW6mfbboH0J9jDSmYuTpHAtZ0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyfXkjXo8vQ2PRXeOOT419+9AtDCzkEkp/JjPxEolerWFIYErTbDXZAIKYDSyhC1TrHAi494WZdZFx0l7yTyQY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6646:: with SMTP id f6mr5753391wrw.68.1554913260732; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <54c335ec-d4a7-d842-1d72-af5a5ec8df43@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <54c335ec-d4a7-d842-1d72-af5a5ec8df43@dcrocker.net>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:20:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfMVp+jit7raDqP0vnz-AtU6J4igZsJY+0rt5MjZivEE_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bimi@ietf.org" <bimi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000901fe005862f7495"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/X-wsHQEy6F4e442Kit_FlA6sNpw>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] Logo/Trademark conflict
X-BeenThere: bimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Brand Indicators for Message Identification <bimi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bimi/>
List-Post: <mailto:bimi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:21:08 -0000

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:10 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> When the design of Bimi can deal with resolving this sort of problem, it
> will be reasonable to consider it more substantially.
>

You could say the same thing about DNS or gTLD registrations. Legal
conflicts like this are outside the scope of what an interoperability spec
can reasonably address. No?

Seth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email