Re: Question regarding trademarks

todd <tglassey@earthlink.net> Mon, 02 June 2014 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <tglassey@earthlink.net>
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 ACEF01A0141 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 ixI87iKJOOvl for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC49E1A0264 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=BKK+OtE6EcHUxJPCvZLYItqUa7y+ihInfjJwVrg9lqmdjkuw8wlV2/Gbn25gfeNW; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [67.180.134.155] (helo=[192.168.0.4]) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1WrUnK-00031b-Q1 for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:09:07 -0400
Message-ID: <538CA19C.4070307@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:09:00 -0700
From: todd <tglassey@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding trademarks
References: <A91CB92A-005C-4599-95DC-B6350C2D0FDB@cisco.com> <CAP0PwYabew0M=OGA24G780uKeJOvVEOc9PQRtEzoi76-LdUQhg@mail.gmail.com> <9B2EE7B3-E82E-426B-AE2B-F8CAF4C9CFAE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B2EE7B3-E82E-426B-AE2B-F8CAF4C9CFAE@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010709060609000909060608"
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79ef092c6ee35d3853c90fe1505ab7a284350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 67.180.134.155
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/ntE8T5RYVqLOB5jewA_3yq6aNqY
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: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:09:18 -0000

I have serious concerns that this contract is not one which a third 
party is bound by. Also that there is no protection in the context of a 
litigation over the IETF's use of a protected term is critical.

Todd Glassey

On 5/7/2014 8:09 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> On May 7, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com 
> <mailto:cntreras@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Fred,
>>
>> See Section 3.4 of RFC 5378:
>>
>>
>>       3.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378#section-3.4>;. Rights
>>       to Use Trademarks
>>
>>
>>
>>     Contributors may wish to seek trademark or service mark protection on
>>     any terms that are coined or used in their Contributions.  The IETF
>>     makes no judgment about the validity of any such trademark rights.
>>     However, the IETF requires each Contributor, under the licenses
>>     described inSection 5.3  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378#section-5.3>  below, to grant the IETF Trust a perpetual
>>     license to use any such trademarks or service marks solely in
>>     exercising rights to reproduce, publish, discuss, and modify the IETF
>>     Contribution.  This license does not authorize the IETF or others to
>>     use any trademark or service mark in connection with any product or
>>     service offering.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:fred@cisco.com>> 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
>>     Ipr-wg@ietf.org <mailto:Ipr-wg@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3950/7520 - Release Date: 05/19/14