Re: Question regarding trademarks
Alan Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wed, 07 May 2014 15:19 UTC
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E4F1A08B3 for <email@example.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([184.108.40.206]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P0wiIDb3hcza for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omx.cbeyond.com (omx.cbeyond.com [220.127.116.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67701A07D6 for <email@example.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-HAT: Sender Group ONNET_RELAY, Policy $ACCEPTED applied.
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1004,1389762000"; d="scan'208,217";a="96951591"
Received: from unknown (HELO alans-mbp.telchemy.com) ([18.104.22.168]) by omx.cbeyond.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 07 May 2014 11:19:08 -0400
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 11:19:06 -0400
From: Alan Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
Subject: Re: Question regarding trademarks
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060406010009070404090503"
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:19:16 -0000
I've encountered this before in both ATIS and ITU. The SDO would probably "have" to change the name to avoid a trademark, if the field of use of the SDO name and trademark overlapped. Trademarks also have the delightful characteristic that some PTO's use a "first to file" rather than a "first to use" rule and hence someone could theoretically file a trademark application for a term that the SDO was already using and then force the SDO to change it. Alan On 5/6/14, 8:11 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > 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? > > > _______________________________________________ > Ipr-wg mailing list > Ipremail@example.com > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg