IETF Logo Mail Archive

Question regarding trademarks

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 07 May 2014 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91B1A068C for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 May 2014 17:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 JRs6vEFw_ejT for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 May 2014 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1441A03D7 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2014 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1674; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1399421484; x=1400631084; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=o8tfPI0jEDj/lfIARgV/9BZQwkqzbK77wURjrqjmOzA=; b=G98I8TGIBV/TJl07M3qkt92lg5fa/mGG8feFQPof41kFLF0SMY0Ith0M +sPasrllynQuv3k3NFQ+JJ9pM1No5pXxLSDFHLkzJiW4w17rR+ECsF64w Y5E7KSJ97MuDSm5KtfaKkWIJbkUhTQVQWlazI3xZZca27Q8qDp5cvENUb M=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAG55aVOtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwaBJ8YIFnSCLIELAYEAJwQhiDOZcrQ+F5IDgRUEkSSBOYZaknuDNIIv
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,999,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="322903400"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 May 2014 00:11:23 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s470BN68006123 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 00:11:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.99]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:11:23 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "ipr-wg@ietf.org" <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Question regarding trademarks
Thread-Topic: Question regarding trademarks
Thread-Index: AQHPaYjhkyp95itTNEeAz323wOWRkA==
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 00:11:22 +0000
Message-ID: <A91CB92A-005C-4599-95DC-B6350C2D0FDB@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_533F5D2E-9C7E-4BCF-8BF7-64A812EB1492"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/534dER0VsfI8XU7psX7yUmPWm6o
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 May 2014 08:02:17 -0700
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 00:11:29 -0000

I just fielded a call from a Cisco colleague, who is working in a different (open source) forum, and coming up against an issue relating to a trademark. Apparently some company has named something in a product of that forum, and is now wanting to assert trademark rights on the name.

He asked me what the IETF’s policy in such cases might be, knowing that there are discussions in the IETF that touch on trademarked intellectual property. I couldn’t quickly put my finger on such a policy, although I did find a proposed policy in draft-ietf-ipr-trademarks. Thinking out loud, I suggested that the party with the trademark would likely need to disclose it, and if there was any question on the matter, the IETF might prefer to change the name of the standardized technology, as it did between NetFlow and IPFIX, if only to avoid confusion. But I’m not sure that’s any more than how I might address the issue.

Do we have a defined policy?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email