<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><a href="http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:8jjlgg.2.3">http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:8jjlgg.2.3</a></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">You might want to talk to your lawyer about the second, live, registration, before you go further down that road.</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 27, 2020, at 12:35 AM, Andrew Nassief <kamalandrew55@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><p>The term open innovation been used since the 1960s:</p><p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_innovation">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_innovation</a></p><p>A substantially higher amount of people are familiar with the term open innovation then they are with the open innovation network. Saying that the Open Innovation Network now own the entire OIN acronym is unfair because as I made the point earlier, many acronyms are used can be implied for other things. Also, if Open Innovation should only be synonymous with the Open Innovation Network that would be very restrictive. You can't trademark open Innovation ad they are two genetic words, and since the OIN identifier isn't used on other open source licenses, saying it is unusable on behalf of an entity is in itself a restrictive principal.</p><p><br></p><p>Anyways, in regards to your other inquiries, I will submit a license by license analysis and respond to your inquiries individually as soon as I can.</p><p><br></p><p>Best regards, Andrew</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>