Trademark case studies: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 17:

==== Should we approve this use of our trademark? ====

Do it like Microsoft—you can only put the '''CONTAINS SUGAR''' decal on the front if the computer meets our minimum specification. If it doesn't meet that specification then you can put '''contains Sugar operating system (R)''' in small print in the specification box on the back.

You should apply for a license for our label program. We will need to verify that there actually is Sugar running. License should be for one year with updated rider from applicant for renewal. We shouldn't charge for licensing, including by commercial entities.

~~(Sean) No, neither of these—the company~~ should apply for a license for our label program. We will need to verify that there actually is Sugar running. License should be for one year with updated rider from applicant for renewal. ~~I don~~'t ~~think however we should~~ charge for licensing, including by commercial entities.

==== How should the policy work to achieve this ====

All uses of the decal need a contract. For this case we ~~can use a standard contract available for download as a pdf from~~ our trademark ~~info page.~~

All uses of the decal need a contract. For an OEM like this case we would want to agree what you are including with our software and how you are using our trademark before we give permission.

~~(Sean) I agree standard contract should be published and available. However, I am not sure~~ we ~~will want to offer identical conditions to all applicants, in particular OEMs~~.

=== Sugar on a Stick ===

Line 37:

Line 33:

==== What should the policy be? ====

~~Is approval automatic or do we insist~~ you ~~tell us your real name and your address first~~. ~~Do we demand that~~ you ~~report back how many copies~~ you ~~sold and~~ to ~~who~~?

Approval by a trademark bot since you are using the software unchanged. Approval subject to you confirming you agree to our standard contract including clauses related to :

* expiry date

* renewal

* language confirming no one gets a warranty from us

* revocation if you break the terms

* anything else?

(Sean) ~~approval can't~~ be ~~automatic for several reasons I have outlined previously~~, ~~but in particular because of periodicity, renewal~~, and revocation if conditions not respected (e.g. the stick turns out to have proprietary software on it instead of the official SL build). Another reason is support—we need to avoid scenario of sales which imply SL community support without our even knowing about it.

A copy of the standard contract to be available from our trademark page

(Sean) No bot. As stated previously there needs to be contact, review, and approval for a term period.

=== Sugar on a Stick with extra stuff ===

Line 155:

Line 158:

examples: openSUSE-Edu-li-f-e or Fedora-12-i686-Live-Edu

(Sean) that's "Sugar Labs", not "SugarLabs" ;-)

A perfect candidate for the labeling program.

If there's an idea to do advertising, let's talk - very few FOSS projects do any advertising, promotion, or end-user marketing.

==== Should we approve this use of our trademark? ====

~~Stuff goes here~~.

(Sean) Sure - we wish to encourage precisely this case.

==== What should the policy be? ====

~~More stuff goes here~~.

(Sean) The labeling program is designed to promote Sugar in a way easily recognizable by teachers, parents, education buyers, etc.

=== Case Name Here===

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ==== Should we approve this use of our trademark? ====
-Do it like Microsoft—you can only put the '''CONTAINS SUGAR''' decal on the front if the computer meets our minimum specification. If it doesn't meet that specification then you can put '''contains Sugar operating system (R)''' in small print in the specification box on the back.
+You should apply for a license for our label program. We will need to verify that there actually is Sugar running. License should be for one year with updated rider from applicant for renewal. We shouldn't charge for licensing, including by commercial entities.
-(Sean) No, neither of these—the company should apply for a license for our label program. We will need to verify that there actually is Sugar running. License should be for one year with updated rider from applicant for renewal. I don't think however we should charge for licensing, including by commercial entities.
 ==== How should the policy work to achieve this ====
-All uses of the decal need a contract.  For this case we can use a standard contract available for download as a pdf from our trademark info page.
+All uses of the decal need a contract.  For an OEM like this case we would want to agree what you are including with our software and how you are using our trademark before we give permission.
-(Sean) I agree standard contract should be published and available. However, I am not sure we will want to offer identical conditions to all applicants, in particular OEMs.
 === Sugar on a Stick ===
@@ Line 37: / Line 33: @@
 ==== What should the policy be? ====
-Is approval automatic or do we insist you tell us your real name and your address first. Do we demand that you report back how many copies you sold and to who?
+Approval by a trademark bot since you are using the software unchanged. Approval subject to you confirming you agree to our standard contract including clauses related to :
+* expiry date
+* renewal
+* language confirming no one gets a warranty from us
+* revocation if you break the terms
+* anything else?
-(Sean) approval can't be automatic for several reasons I have outlined previously, but in particular because of periodicity, renewal, and revocation if conditions not respected (e.g. the stick turns out to have proprietary software on it instead of the official SL build). Another reason is support—we need to avoid scenario of sales which imply SL community support without our even knowing about it.
+A copy of the standard contract to be available from our trademark page
+(Sean) No bot. As stated previously there needs to be contact, review, and approval for a term period.
 === Sugar on a Stick with extra stuff ===
@@ Line 155: / Line 158: @@
 examples: openSUSE-Edu-li-f-e or Fedora-12-i686-Live-Edu
+(Sean) that's "Sugar Labs", not "SugarLabs" ;-)
+A perfect candidate for the labeling program.
+If there's an idea to do advertising, let's talk - very few FOSS projects do any advertising, promotion, or end-user marketing.
 ==== Should we approve this use of our trademark? ====
-Stuff goes here.
+(Sean) Sure - we wish to encourage precisely this case.
 ==== What should the policy be? ====
-More stuff goes here.
+(Sean) The labeling program is designed to promote Sugar in a way easily recognizable by teachers, parents, education buyers, etc.
 === Case Name Here===