[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[Javier]

Can I  get removed from the email list. 

-----Original Message-----
From: kloprogge at pointlogic.com [mailto:kloprogge at pointlogic.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:16 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]


Just to add to my last point. Couldn't OSI file for the "Open Source"
trademark and for "OSI Open Source" at the same time? OSI Open Source
should be relatively easy and it will be a very good first step.

Peter
 
------Original Message------
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Sent: Jan 5, 2007 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]


Thanks Arnoud,

I guess "open source" does have a strong secondary meaning but not only
referring to OSI's definition (that's the reason to want to trademark in
the first place). So the question remains, if "open source" is used,
misused and abused all over the place with OSI as the leading and
authorative organisation trying to avoid the misuse, would trademarking
stand a chance? A trademark, as mentioned on the OSI website, has their
preference and personally I think it would strongly help the community.

Peter


------Original Message------
From: Arnoud Engelfriet
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Sent: Jan 5, 2007 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

Peter Kloprogge wrote:
> I have some experience in trademarks and they specifically should not 
> be descriptive. Personally I agree that trademarking "open source" 
> wouldn't have been accepted.

A trademark should not be "merely descriptive". You can however have a
(weak) trademark on a suggestive mark, that adds a little to the mere
description.

In addition, a descriptive mark can become distinctive by achieving
secondary meaning. If today customers associated the phrase "open
source" with OSI's definition, then the phrase would have secondary
meaning and can be registered as a trademark today. 

(Trademarking isn't a one-time thing like patents; you can use a mark in
commerce for years and only then register it as a trademark)

One example on Bitlaw is the mark "SHARP" for televisions. Although most
televisions produce sharp images, the mark has secondary meaning.
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/degrees.html#descriptive

Arnoud
(trademark attorney but IANYL, TINLA)
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for
myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies:
http://www.iusmentis.com/


Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile