On 15 June 2010 00:20, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You are claiming the law is complicated. But the facts are >> plain and simple, and no amount of FUDD is going to support >> a view that there is any reasonable justification (by moral >> or juridifical standards) to claim WMF is the body to apply >> for permission to use "wiki" on something. That just ain't >> gonna happen, *nohow*. Sorry. That is just a fact. Don't try >> to squirm. > > > Frankly, if we *could* try to claim a trademark on the word "wiki", we > *shouldn't*. At most, ask the site nicely to note somewhere they're > nothing to do with "Wikipedia."
I'm not suggesting we should claim a trademark on the word "wiki" (it wouldn't stand up). I'm suggesting that "wiki" when used as the name of an encyclopaedia is sufficiently similar to "Wikipedia" to cause confusion in the market (which is what trademarks are designed to prevent). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
