Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Stephen Frost writes: >> > 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? >> >> I doubt it -- selling shirts would be a commercial purpose outside >> "identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a >> licensee." > > Alright, now I think we might be getting somewhere. So the issue here > is that, because selling a t-shirt with a trademark on it is outside the > scope of "identifying goods [...]" it must therefore be enforced in > order to claim that we're enforcing the trademark and have the right to > *keep* the trademark then. A-ha.
> Given that's the case- do we actually need a *contract* with people > using the trademark outside of "identifying goods [...]"? Attempting to > find a more technical solution- would it be possible to notify people we > find who use the trademark in a way we approve of outside of > "identifying goods [...]" that we're cool with them using it and to > track such uses in a database maintained by SPI? Doesn't seem to me > like that'd be too much effort on our part, or onus on their part. Of > course, we could say that we'd prefer if they could notify us so that we > could review their use and approve it and add them to our database ahead > of time. Or indeed, could Debian give everyone a reasonable trademark license, allowing them to have commercial purposes outside "identifying goods [...]" as long as they never used the trademark to refer to anyone *but* Debian? -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
