Henning Makholm > Does the use of a trademark word to refer unambiguously to a specific > technical protocol in package descriptions and documentation (that is, > not in marketing materials) even require a trademark license? I know > that it certainly does not in Denmark, but of course that does not say > anything about the rest of the world.
I'm pretty sure that it doesn't in England either and I'd expect it to be across the EU. http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/ Out of context, that quote from RFC 1510 looks just plain wrong, but I can see why the holder would want it to be believed. In general, I suggest not inappropriately acknow(tm)ledging trademarks, but trying to use any marks honestly and accurately anyway, whether they are registered or not. The only time they should be a problem is when a copyright holder tries for a SuperTrademark through bad copyright terms. In particular, I can't recall exactly what DEAD means for USPTO. I'd expect it to be difficult to enforce. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
