Talk:Trademark

Sugar Labs association/organization conflated with Sugar software

2a & b, and elsewhere suggest that the full name of our product is 'Sugar Labs' rather than Sugar or some form of Sugar. Yes, 5e suggests that Sugar is short for Sugar Labs. This would be a new practice. Why conflate the terms?

Why not register Sugar as a mark for our software, and Sugar Labs for our association?

--FGrose 23:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Logo

In paragraph 1, "(our trademark registration application for the logo is still pending)", is a separate statement, right? Sugar Labs is already registered, but the logos (colors and typface) are pending registration, no? If so, this would be more clear as a separate sentence in the introduction, as it is currently too closely associated with the Sugar Labs name.

--FGrose 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the logo is not registered. It seemed that the name "Sugar Labs" was enough. --Walter 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Section 5a

It has been suggested that we certify distributions as "Sugar on a Stick". "Otherwise nothing stops anyone from creating a lousy version which hardly works and calls it Sugar on a Stick Peanut Butter release, etc."

Comments? --Walter 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We have our hands full verifying and testing our own release. Our best defense is focusing on making the best release and so being able to market it as such. --FGrose 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It adds yet another thing to worry about that can better be handled downstream. --Walter 23:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This line of judgement needs revisiting. "our own release" means Strawberry? If SL lets anyone use "Sugar on a Stick", then it's probably giving up the rights to the trademark "Sugar on a Stick", right?

Sugar Labs/Legal/Logo and trademark policy

This older page needs updating. --FGrose 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)