d
singling out debian-multimedia.org, I think this confusion could just as
well happen with repositories on foo.debian.net domains.
Perhaps we need some kind of policy for DDs establishing unofficial
repositories under 'debian' domains. Nothing too bureaucratic, just a
standard disclaimer tha
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
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Which part of "Get the people who hold the trademark to enforce it"
>> sounds unreasonable?
>
> The bit that has tension with the holder's assertion that
> "The Debian trademark is managed by Debian" on
> http://www.spi-inc.org/trademar
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Which part of "Get the people who hold the trademark to enforce it"
> sounds unreasonable?
The bit that has tension with the holder's assertion that
"The Debian trademark is managed by Debian" on
http://www.spi-inc.org/trademarks
Even if it's to get them to act ultimately
* Jimmy Kaplowitz:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 10:46:25AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> I don't really know myself what the procedures are, but I'm CCing the
>> trademark list on this for their feedback.
>
> I am not a trademark lawyer or otherwise especially knowledgeable, but
> I'd imagine that a
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
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 02:08 -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I'm just doing the due diligence bit. Sending them a cease and desist
> probably
> won't lead to trouble. They'll probably walk away from a stupidly long domain
> name like that. I just wish that we had our ducks in a row from a "tradem
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
We've been over this many times but just to be sure. Understand that sending a
cease and desist can lead to litigation. One move from an opposing party
would be to file suit in their location to establish jurisdiction that favors
them. If we fail to answer that lawsuit we may be subject to a sum
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 10:46:25AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I don't really know myself what the procedures are, but I'm CCing the
> trademark list on this for their feedback.
I am not a trademark lawyer or otherwise especially knowledgeable, but
I'd imagine that a C&D followed if necessary by
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you *know* how it's viewed by dispute resolution panels,
> or are you assuming that too?
Debian isn't a legal entity. Our trademarks are held by SPI. It's
possible that a third party can get dispute resolution panels interested
in a specific case, but that's
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 project leader recently reported problems with the
> debiangnulinux.com and .n
SPI board members,
The debian project leader recently reported problems with the
debiangnulinux.com and .net domains to the debian-project
mailing list.
What is the current advice on chasing down "bad faith"
registrations including the debian trademark? Can any SPI
contributing member help, and d
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Our trademarks are held by SPI, so I'd assume that we need to act
> through them. [...]
Assumption is the mother of all cock-ups. Passing this to SPI
based on an assumption looks to me like handwaving "somebody
else's problem" consistent with the "lazy SPI" myth. Of course
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regardless, I would start by accepting Gregg's offer and
> using domain dispute procedures for the "removed" ones, if
> we want the domain. I think the first one is the registrar at
> http://www.enom.com/terms/drp.asp and this seems straightforward,
> covered by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's a problem if our trademark is being used for advertising unrelated
> products. Now that we're aware of it, failing to take some form of
> action could potentially result in us losing the trademark.
Regardless, I would start by accepting Gregg's offer and
using domai
* Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-01 13:44]:
> Hello Matthew,
>
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-01 13:37]:
> > Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Is this really a problem? I mean this is a domain which we
> > > never considered to use. And I think there aren'
Hello Matthew,
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-01 13:37]:
> Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is this really a problem? I mean this is a domain which we
> > never considered to use. And I think there aren't much
> > people who would use it, because debian.org is much shor
Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this really a problem? I mean this is a domain which we
> never considered to use. And I think there aren't much
> people who would use it, because debian.org is much shorter.
It's a problem if our trademark is being used for advertising unrelated
produc
Hi,
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-01
12:45]:
> I'm forwarding a message from -www (see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2005/03/msg00014.html). Do you
> think we should do anything about this?
[...]
Is this really a problem? I mean this is a domain
I'm forwarding a message from -www (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2005/03/msg00014.html). Do you
think we should do anything about this?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-03 08:18]:
> Hello,
>
> A few years ago I noticed that debiangnulinux.com .org and .net domains were
29 matches
Mail list logo
