Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> [...] given that the domains currently in question don't seem
> particularly urgent, I suggest we wait until we have a clear procedure
> and policy. [...]
We have at least one of the domains was an "obvious" guess for
debian, yet it was being used by a SuSE reseller until
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 14:21]:
> > Anyway, before we can enforce our trademark, we actually need an
> > updated and coherent trademark policy.
>
> I'm disappointed by your inaction. The current permission statement
> does not permit any use which seems to cover this case.
> http:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:44:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to the spi-trademark list.]
Nor am I.
[ much snippage ]
> I'm CCing John Goerzen, the SPI President -- John, if you think it would be
> a good idea, please ask David to add an SPI Trademark Committee update
[I am not subscribed to the spi-trademark list.]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:21:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > There are other domains which are imho more problematic than those
> > mentioned in this thread. Anyway, before we can enforce our
> > trademark, we actually nee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are other domains which are imho more problematic than those
> mentioned in this thread. Anyway, before we can enforce our
> trademark, we actually need an updated and coherent trademark policy.
I'm disappointed by your inaction. The current permission
statement d
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-12 20:58]:
> Will the outgoing DPL do this for the domains which triggered this
> enquiry, please? It seems like it's a simple update to the summary
> posted to debian-project with copies of any original emails.
There are other domains which are imho more prob
Greg wrote:
> If you forward me the the information about
> the disputed domain and the relevant correspondence, I will take a look.
Thanks to Greg for the reply.
Will the outgoing DPL do this for the domains which triggered this
enquiry, please? It seems like it's a simple update to the summary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/01/2005
11:46:25 AM:
> MJ,
>
> I don't really know myself what the procedures are, but I'm CCing
the
> trademark list on this for their feedback.
>
> -- John
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 05:11:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > SPI board members,
> >
> > The debian pro
Ean Schuessler wrote:
Just go into this with your eyes open.
I assure you.
I'd guess they will immediately back
away from it at the first sign of organized resistance or they are totally
prepared to mess with you in court and waste your time.
Delay is a likely strategy, and one we can cope wi
Just go into this with your eyes open.
I would imagine that a company specializing in predatory domain trading comes
well prepared to handle itself in court. I'd guess they will immediately back
away from it at the first sign of organized resistance or they are totally
prepared to mess with you
Ean Schuessler wrote:
We've been over this many times but just to be sure. Understand that sending a
cease and desist can lead to litigation.
Yes. FROM US. It's time to stop being fearful little pansies about this.
While we whine and quake "Ooooh, somebody could sue us, oh no oh no oh
no" we ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
