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 typeface) 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)

Sugar on a Stick Guidelines

I am herewith proposing the following changes to the section 5a. This has been derived from Fedora's trademark guidelines and might need to be adjusted to cover more cases, as listed in those guidelines. By referring to Sugar on a Stick, the following draft means the project located and hosted here.

• You may use the term Sugar on a Stick whenever referring to the official Sugar on a Stick product and its releases, as well as when distributing unmodified copies of it.
  • However, this usage must not imply any endorsement by Sugar Labs or the Sugar on a Stick project, unless this is case and an appropriate agreement has been reached.
• You may modify Sugar on a Stick and create remixes of it.
  • However, when distributing or selling this modified version, you must not call it Sugar on a Stick.
  • When not exposing the resulting product to the public, you may still call it Sugar on a Stick, though. A deployment might adjust Sugar on a Stick for its needs and still say it deployed Sugar on a Stick, as long as the modified version is not distributed publicly.

substantially unmodified

We discuss examples of "substantially unmodified" in Section 2 of the policy: "including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches." But it would be instructive to give some examples of changes that would not qualify as substantially unmodified: including but not limited to adding of non-free drivers. (We need to build consensus around this issue.) --Walter 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How to make modifications

There is a discussion here about making a systemic process for most trivial modifications. --Walter 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Trademark Policy

DRAFT: 7 May 2010

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the identity, provenance, and free and open-source nature of Sugar Labs^® remain clear to the public. This is in keeping with our objective to spread the use of the Sugar Learning Platform while protecting our trademarks. It is our intention to be liberal and responsive in the enforcement of our trademarks: we want our Marks to be widely used to represent our learning mission to the public, but we also need to ensure clarity regarding the relationship between Sugar Labs and the individual or organization using our Marks in order to both protect Sugar Labs and the public. We encourage you to contact us if you have any questions about this policy. Throughout this document, the word "Marks" refers to the Sugar Labs name and logo, individually or together. Note that Section 5 provides guidelines for other marks used by Sugar Labs. Sugar Labs is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy, which is the holder of the [| registered mark].

Guidelines for using the Marks

1.

The first or most prominent mention of the name should be immediately followed by a symbol for registered trademark: "®" or "(r)". For example: "Sugar Labs^®".

This requirement is waived in all contexts where such marks are not normally included: email, on-line discussion, non-graphical advertisements (when permitted), and academic papers. We encourage the use of the symbol whenever possible, but recognize that many non-commercial and informal uses will omit it.

2.

a.

You may use the Sugar Labs Marks without prior written permission for the following purposes (subject to the other sections):

To refer to the Sugar Labs software in substantially unmodified form "substantially unmodified" means built from the source code provided by the Sugar Labs project, possibly with minor modifications including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into other languages, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches). All such minor modifications must be released under an approved license.

To identify Sugar Labs software as a distinct component of a software offering. For example, "MyDistro, sweetened by Sugar" or other "<product>, <joined with> Sugar" language would be a use that does not require explicit written permission.

b.

You may use the Sugar Labs Marks with prior written permission for the following purposes (subject to the other sections):

If you are producing a new product which is based on Sugar Labs software but which has more substantial changes than those described in the previous paragraph, you may refer to your product as "derived from", "based on", or "a derivative of" a Sugar Labs mark.

Please refer to our [Request] procedure for details regarding obtaining a license to use the Sugar Marks.

c.

You do not need written permission to refer to the Sugar Labs project itself, its products, or its protocols.

3.

You may use the Sugar Labs Marks as part of the name of a product designed to work with Sugar Labs, so long as the name as a whole (via its other components) clearly and unambiguously distinguishes the product from Sugar Labs software itself, and the general presentation of the product does not imply any official association or identity with Sugar Labs. Because it would be awkward to attach a trademark symbol to a portion of a larger name whose other portions might themselves be trademarked, the requirement to display the symbol is waived for this circumstance.

4.

You may not use the Marks in the following ways:

a.

In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of the Sugar Labs project, the provenance of its software, or the software's license (the Sugar Labs Marks should be secondary in advertising materials, including graphics on websites, etc.);

b.

In any way that indicates a greater degree of association between you and the Sugar Labs project than actually exists;

c.

In any way that implies a designated successor to Sugar Labs (e.g., "Sugar Labs++" is not permitted).

d.

In a way that indicates that Sugar Labs favors one distribution, platform, product, etc. over another.

5.

Sugar Labs also uses the following other marks:

a.

Sugar on a Stick:

The "Sugar on a Stick" name and mark is associated with a specific Sugar Labs liveUSB project. You may produce and distribute Sugar Labs software on a USB key or other device, but you are required choose a different name to avoid confusion.

b.

Sugar Labs Partner:

"Sugar Labs Partner" should only be used to refer to a person or entity that is officially affiliated with the Sugar Labs project. Sugar Labs is happy to designate partners, so please contact us if you are interested in becoming a Sugar Labs Partner.

c.

Sugar Ready:

"Sugar Ready" may be used to refer to software certified by Sugar Labs to run on top of an official version of Sugar Labs, please contact us if you are interested in receiving a certification.

d.

Sugar Learning Platform

"Sugar Learning Platform" should be used to refer to the software created by Sugar Labs and should be used under the same guidelines as per Sections 2 and 3 of this policy.

e.

Sugar

We sometimes use this term as a shortened way to refer to software and other things created by Sugar Labs. Please use this policy as guidance for use of these terms as well and contact us if you are uncertain.

f.

local Sugar Lab:

We have affiliated local and regional Sugar Labs that are referred to Sugar Labs <Region Name>, e.g., Sugar Labs Colombia. Sugar Labs is happy to designate local lab partners, so please contact us if you are interested in establishing a local Sugar Lab.

6.

You may create and sell merchandise using the Sugar Labs name and logo without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics from the logo page on the Sugar Labs website. Please contact us if you would like to sell any other merchandise containing Sugar Labs Marks. This section is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 2 and 3 of this policy.

7.

The Software Freedom Conservancy reserves the sole right to:

a.

Determine compliance with this policy;

b.

Modify this policy in ways consistent with its mission of protecting the public;

c.

Grant exceptions to this policy, of any kind and for any reason whatsoever, other clauses notwithstanding.

Contact information

If you have questions about using the Marks, or if you think you should be able to use the Marks for any purpose not allowed by this policy and would like permission for that use, please contact Sugar Labs by emailing [trademark@sugarlabs.org] or by writing to Sugar Labs c/o Software Freedom Conservancy, 1995 BROADWAY FL 17, NEW YORK NY 10023-5882 USA.

Usage examples

Usage examples can be found on the Guidelines page.

Trademark case studies

As the next step in working on the trademark, we are preparing case studies. The below text is taken from the Trademark case studies page - please edit that page directly to contribute.

A Trademark case study is an practical example of a way someone might want to use the Sugar Labs trademark. We use it as a way to test different trademark policy options—how would it cope with that case?

A good case study is one which describes a real use which will stimulate us to think about how we would like our trademark to be used. It doesn't have to be a borderline 'edge' case. It is probably best to start with the clear cut cases then consider the limits later.

How to write a case study

• Look at the case studies below.
• If you can see a way to make one of those case studies better then edit that case study.
• If you think of a way that someone might want to use the Sugar Labs trademark—that doesn't duplicate one of the case studies already here—then add that case study at the end of the page or wherever it best fits.
• Follow the format of the other case studies here unless you think of a better format.

Used to label a computer with Sugar installed

You are a Chinese toy manufacturer and you are tired of selling toys to Fisher Price for 99 cents then watching them resell the same toy for $99. You have developed a cool looking child friendly green computer that is probably not toxic and can run Sugar but no one will buy it because no one has ever heard of you.

You want to put a big picture of the Sugar home screen and a CONTAINS SUGAR decal on the box because then it will look a bit like the XO.

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

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.

How should the policy work to achieve this

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.

Sugar on a Stick

You want to sell bootable usb drives with the official Sugar-on-a-Stick distribution and you want Sugar Labs silkscreened on the outside of each one.

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

Yes.

What should the policy be?

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?

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

You want to sell bootable usb drives with Sugar on a Stick plus extra software (some of it non-free) .

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

Yes—provided it is clear which is our software and which is by others.

(Sean) This can't be Sugar on a Stick, but it is a fine candidate for the labeling program.

What should the policy be?

You can call it Sugar if it is Sugar but you you must not put our name on stuff we didn't make.

(Sean) The above is ambiguous, unfortunately. However, the labeling program should cover this case.

Sugar on a Stick with modified stuff

You want to sell bootable usb drives with a version of Sugar on a Stick that has been revised to make it more culturally appropriate by adding references to your god at the start and end of each activity.

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

No. It isn't our version of the software.

(Sean) This can't be Sugar on a Stick, but could be a candidate for the labeling program.

What should the policy be?

If you have adapted our work then we don't know for sure what you changed and we don't want people blaming us for what you did. You can put "Based on the Sugar software system (R)" in the small print on the back. If you want your changes included in our version then submit those changes to us for consideration and we might include them in the next version.

(Sean) "Based on the Sugar software system" is not a phrase we should use; the labelling program will enumerate acceptable phrases. One of the conditions of licensing through the labelling program will be clear responsibility for technical support.

Sugar cubes

You sell sugar cubes and you think our logo looks good so you copy it and put it on your boxes of sugar cubes.

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

Hmmm. Maybe we should have picked a name which was less generic.

(Sean) heh—a topic for (re)discussion in marketing meetings! More seriously, a trademark is granted for a specific scope of activity; the cane and beet sugar associations don't "do" computer software last I checked. On the other hand, if they use VAG Rounded Light and our color scheme (in other words, if they copy our logo), throw the book at 'em.

What should the policy be?

If you sell sugar then we can't stop you calling it sugar but leave the logo alone.

Sugar development laboratory

You are Slovakia's leading developer of sugarbeet processing equipment, serving the sugar beet industry throughout Slovakia and parts of Ukraine and Hungary. Sugar Labs is the name you use for your research reports, including the sugar beet related software you market throughout central eastern Europe.

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

Oh dear. Don't know.

(Sean) Doesn't apply, it's not software.

What should the policy be?

More stuff goes here.

(Sean) complain to our MEPs that Eastern European beet sugar round trips through the Netherlands by truck to win EU subsidies, adding to pollution too.

Look and Feel

You think Sugar is a stupid name for a software distribution but you like the stylised man surrounded by menu options so you use that look and feel in your proprietary hedge fund management software

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

The look and feel is a pretty fundamental part of the software which we have licensed under the GPL. Stopping them using that would pretty much stop them using Sugar at all. Wouldn't that be against the GPL? Would we even want to regulate that use?

(Sean) But you just said it wasn't Sugar, but proprietary hedge fund software. So no, they can't use the XO man. And by the way, neither can we—OLPC has asked us not to.

What should the policy be?

More stuff goes here.

$DISTRO

(Sean) You like the Sugar on a Stick concept, but you prefer to use Ubuntu, or Debian, or openSUSE as the underlying distro on your liveUSB implementation instead of the current Fedora. You want to call it Sugar on a Cube and your visuals have sugar cubes with a USB connector poking out.

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

(Sean) No, because that will be too similar to Sugar-on-a-Stick and will cause confusion (the essence of trademark is to avoid confusion). This is precisely why licensing cannot be "automatic". A different name will have to be chosen.

What should the policy be?

(Sean) This is a perfect candidate for the labeling program, once the name problem is sorted out. We wish to encourage this case!

Intel Classmate partner OEM

(Sean) I am one of Intel's 40+ local partners, assembling Classmate v2 machines in a country. The local government is considering purchasing 258,000 machines, but they are balking at the cost of Microsoft Windows licensing and proprietary kids' desktop licensing. I'd like to propose Sugar instead and call my machine "Sugar Babies".

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

(Sean) Considering the size of the potential order and the opportunity for Sugar, we will give careful consideration to your licensing application and may well make an exception to our usual rule of avoiding Sugar in the name of your product.

What should the policy be?

(Sean) A perfect candidate for the labeling program.

Sugar on a bootable USB stick as part of a Educational Suite

Is inclusion of Sugar (sugar-emulator) in a suite of educational software where the icon says "Sugar" on the desktop or in the menus an allowed use?

If same is accessed via gdm or other desktop switcher with "Sugar" label?

How should such a stick be labeled and advertised? ie: -contains or Sugar-Desktop ?

-with Sugar Educational Software ?

-XXXX-Sugar ?

Can they use "SugarLabs" in label?

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?

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

What should the policy be?

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

Case Name Here

Should we approve this use of our trademark?

Stuff goes here.

What should the policy be?

More stuff goes here.