Re: Question regarding trademarks

TGLASSEY <tglassey@earthlink.net> Wed, 07 May 2014 15:11 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 117F31A04A4 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:11:32 -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 kXyZUiBOZ-nn for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209451A0311 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=rM79NKHFCYDYp5TeQSoAsHIESSimet1kQeOI4CB3dUtRTC/I6dGnXOfIDIECYbIM; 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-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1Wi3VE-0005IO-7H for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2014 11:11:24 -0400
Message-ID: <536A4D25.3030300@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 08:11:33 -0700
From: TGLASSEY <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>
In-Reply-To: <CAP0PwYabew0M=OGA24G780uKeJOvVEOc9PQRtEzoi76-LdUQhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040209000109070702020905"
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec796eef202e067b7890afec9b7bb6984910350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 67.180.134.155
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/qNMPNHxXJCwx8qobHcapfnyFYmg
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 15:11:32 -0000

Jorge the issues in California pertain to something called CUTSA and its 
use in all IP matters per the 9th Circuit ruling.

Todd

On 5/7/2014 8:04 AM, Jorge Contreras 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 <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7451 - Release Date: 05/06/14
>

-- 
-------------

Personal Email - Disclaimers Apply