Hello,
thanks for all your feedback! So, the latest version of this would be
LibreOffice and The Document Foundation are registered trademarks of
their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks
in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also
subject
Hi,
Simon Phipps wrote on 2011-08-22 21:29:
I'm not sure about binding as I think explained is actually an assertive
word, but sure, that's fine too. I was just trying to be concise!
I'm not a native speaker, so you have much more insight into the English
language than I do. ;-)
So, the
Le 23/08/11 10:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi Florian,
Alex, how does that sound from a legal point of view? Is it strong enough?
Usage is explained in our trademark policy.
Alex
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems?
Le 23/08/11 10:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Second thoughts,
subject to international copyright laws. Uses are explained our
trademark policy.
better still :
Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.
Alex
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
On 23 Aug 2011, at 13:03, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
Le 23/08/11 10:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Second thoughts,
subject to international copyright laws. Uses are explained our
trademark policy.
better still :
Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.
I agree
Le 23/08/11 15:25, Simon Phipps a écrit :
Hi Simon,
better still :
Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.
I agree that's more precise English. I am a little concerned it's uncommon
usage that those with English as a second language might consider difficult,
and thus I prefer
On 22 Aug 2011, at 20:18, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi Simon,
Simon Phipps wrote on 2011-08-21 22:32:
As a matter of general style I believe TDF should not use the controversial
expression intellectual property anywhere. I suggest the following phrase:
LibreOffice and The Document
Le 31/07/11 16:53, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi Florian,
hmmm... do I get it right that not mentioning any trademark protection
is better than mentioning that a mark is protected, but not naming the
registrant?
The easiest way around such a situation in the present state of...flux,
On 10 Aug 2011, at 15:04, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
Le 31/07/11 16:53, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi Florian,
hmmm... do I get it right that not mentioning any trademark protection
is better than mentioning that a mark is protected, but not naming the
registrant?
The easiest way
Hi,
Alexander Thurgood wrote on 2011-07-30 20:14:
Assuming that the TM_is_ actually registered in the name of TDF, then
yes, this is OK.
legally, the German association Freies Office Deutschland e.V. is the
current trademark holder, as TDF doesn't exist as legal entity yet.
Florian
--
Le 31/07/11 10:21, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi Florian,
legally, the German association Freies Office Deutschland e.V. is the
current trademark holder, as TDF doesn't exist as legal entity yet.
Ideally then, reference should be made to the FOD Verein and not to TDF.
Not mentioning the
and regards from
Tom :)
From: Alexander Thurgood alex.thurg...@gmail.com
To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Sun, 31 July, 2011 11:03:50
Subject: [steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 31/07/11 10:21, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi Florian
Hi Alex,
Alexander Thurgood wrote on 2011-07-31 12:03:
Ideally then, reference should be made to the FOD Verein and not to TDF.
Not mentioning the name of the rights holder at all opens the person who
publicises such a mark on their product to allegations of fraud,
trademark infringement, and
Le 30/07/11 18:39, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi Florian
I received a trademark use request from an extension vendor. For
confidentiality reasons (the product has not yet been launched), I'll
remove the name, but the request is as follows:
Back of the product box:
LibreOffice is a
14 matches
Mail list logo
