* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 2004-05-07 07:31:27 +0100 Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >With the Debian trademark we want use that is almost entirely > >unenforced > >except for a few particular (and somewhat poorly defined) situations. > > The only well-defined situation I can see at the moment is when > someone attempts to claim debian association, backing or endorsement > fraudulently. I believe that is covered adequately by other laws > everywhere where we could enforce it. Is that correct?
Uh, or they use the Debian trademark for something that's not Debian at
all.. That's not necessairly claiming it as backing or endorsement from
Debian.
> Not only is it not very Debian, but accurate use of the Debian mark to
> refer to our Debian doesn't look like something we can stop with
> trademarking in the UK:
I don't get it. Doesn't this mean, also, that in the UK people *could*
sell shirts with the Coke logo on them? In which case it would seem to
me that the reasons above for having a trademark in the UK would be
perfectly legit and very reasonable and enforceable, and their intended
use? Or is the problem with the Coke logo really with it being
copyrighted, in which case having the trademark for the reasons above
and the copyright with a different license than the Coke folks do would
seem perfectly reasonable and, again, seemingly enforcable unless
there's some reason you can't enforce a trademark unless you're very
strict with the copyright on it? The two would seem like seperate
issues to me.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
