On Sunday 03 January 2010 at 09:23, Ovid wrote:
I would be happy to continue this discussion an another list; which one is
most appropriate?
> What is our concern vis-a-vis the camel
Any use of the camel in a fashion which may cause confusion with products,
services, or initiatives of the trademark holder is grounds for legal action
from the trademark holder.
This includes online publishing, conferences, and book publishing.
To my knowledge (please consult a trademark attorney) there is no licensing
distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses (if you can even get a
solid legal definition of "non-commercial uses").
Note also that the trademark holder has *no* leeway not to pursue legal means;
failing to enforce the trademark even once has serious consequences for
trademark dilution.
In other words, if TPF found itself accidentally or deliberately using the
camel trademark to promote YAPC, perl.org, or on books.perl.org, the trademark
holder would need one of:
a) very creative licensing, at substantial legal risk
b) a staggering display of legal incompetence
c) a shocking display of benevolence
... to resolve the situation. There are no other options. (Note also that
option c would likely dilute the camel trademark such that anyone could use it
for any purpose.)
> While it's certainly the trademark of a private company, I doubt very
> seriously that O'Reilly would be terribly averse to giving TPF plenty of
> leeway in using it (as past history has shown).
The law does not afford that option, save for the option of a trademark
licensing agreement, in which case the trademark holder "must control the
nature or quality of the goods or services bearing the marks".
-- c
