OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Sun Jan 6 06:31:29 UTC 2008
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Rick Moen [mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com] wrote:
>> Above, Philippe asserts that OSI could not be correctly asserted to own
>> an "open source" trademark (and no, capital letters are _not_ required)
>> without "registration", e.g., with USPTO. Sorry, wrong.
> Possibly for the USA only,
Possibly?! IANAL, but see
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm on the official United
States Patent and Trademark Office site, which states, "Federal
registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common
law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to
either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with
the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and
Unless you have contrary legal evidence, I suggest your skepticism is
> but such tolerance in US does not mean that the
> trademark gets any protection elsewhere.
This in incorrect. The U.K., and probably other countries also grant
> Other countries will REQUIRE this registration. Otherwise the US would constantly steal trademarks used and
> registered elsewhere.
This does not make any sense. Trademarks in the United States are
granted and/or recognized for first use. A common-law right will not be
recognized if the mark is duplicative of an existing trademark.
> Trademark registration is effectively needed for international protection,
> without it, the trademark simply does not exist elsewhere, and all those
> authors that have used (and continue to use "open source" outside US are
> fully right to use it as they will, and it may even happen that they gain
> trademark protection in other countries,
Almost all countries have registration based on first use. I wouldn't
be able to go to Europe and register a trademark on Windows just because
Microsoft hadn't done so yet. I would be laughed out of court.
> it won't be enforceable against an internationally approved
> registered trademark, and US won't be able to forbid products using that
> registered trademark from being imported legally in US).
This is false. In the U.S. I can't sell a product that infringes a
common-law trademark, regardless of where it was manufactured.
> The fact you may don't like the WIPO (notably its name that is denounced by
> open source supporters and free software supporters) is not relevant,
> because both need and highly depend on the protection of their licences by
> copyright laws.
You are conflating WIPO and Berne. The Berne Convention was established
in 1886, when neither WIPO nor computer software were a twinkle in
anyone's eye. WIPO now implements Berne, but that is hardly its only
More information about the License-discuss