Re: Re: Community Input Requested on Trustees’ Intent to Renounce “IETF Secretariat” Trademark

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 04 April 2014 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDCE1A0265 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 13:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.062
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Li4UyWmrNKkz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8950F1A024D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 59256 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2014 20:06:23 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2014 20:06:23 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=533f10bf.xn--btvx9d.k1404; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=i2k1huUeCrJkgbV3TLg2EB4s+1Li536Ma9dEzWEmmUo=; b=MtPajW0UbsY94KRpzayYPSJK+fhh9Rs7HTCs+8dA2RLhTzua0xpFkaDCUG3yt6QIGypAxFeQwUngMXPT/4lEbPWfQBWo0mSaygOlhf4Ve/1OJ0YDISj+fliWSCmPmmg782YkqKavxXwIRVruSsfdr8XNsx0jI/9G8brg/hwwkpsH1yj0jdA+Fd4NmT+Bxc/LUcovEuzXrP/IY5IvaGTmMvlmCV+dBA+jvl8+EtbqdhRnAYyg13mI+Qj4W6KoxSXG
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=533f10bf.xn--btvx9d.k1404; bh=i2k1huUeCrJkgbV3TLg2EB4s+1Li536Ma9dEzWEmmUo=; b=4AUziB34HIxRgmwmzYEKAX4m0bBAwii1roS7IIViTxgeHgNTjNYf1WP9r+w2cK1ahzgoaBG/ysQT4GMtENlj6NKeCgU+n7tInTJHDRmwousxagdEL3Twdh4taLp+VBUFfop+btLVKQ/HcdQaH1wl0WVv0Q5zoA9S1PMqE7mBNE6j7YfX4utdf1H54SGLByhsv9ZTQDkHkSa22mFR9QxsRu9Zmc/bsFzjetVdv7G+pohm/nMMz2jRc8irCmm5N+Pc
Date: 4 Apr 2014 20:06:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20140404200600.94331.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Community_Input_Requested_on_Trustees=92_?= =?windows-1252?Q?Intent_to_Renounce_=93IETF_Secretariat=94_Trade?= =?windows-1252?Q?mark?=
In-Reply-To: <DDC6FCD7-B956-44A8-AAA9-AA798EA94B80@isoc.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EZ9J7elEacPg_YhwLMRRmsS4Ioc
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:06:34 -0000

>> It sounds as if this will open the door to my being able to
>> advertise myself as the IETF Secretariat.  Or even the ITU's being
>> able to.  Yes?

> You could certainly use "Secretariat" but you cannot use "IETF
> Secretariat" without violating the "IETF" trademark.

Secretariat is a generic world, while IETF is made up.  Trademark law
generally allows you to protect a made up word, or a phrase containing
made up words or a combination of generic and made up.

I agree that so long as we maintain a trademark on "IETF" there is
little value in separate registration of phrases, particularly
considering how expensive it is.  The US renewal fee is only $450 but
that still seems like a waste in this case.

By the way, when I go to the WIPO Madrid Protocol web site, it says
that the renewal fee for the EU is CHF2186, about $2500.  Where'd the
$5000 come from?  And did we ever follow up on Japan's rejection of
our application?

R's,
John