Fwd: [VOTE] Change JSecurity's Name

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Fwd: [VOTE] Change JSecurity's Name

Alan D. Cabrera
An email that never made it to our list.  This is Marc Poussin, a  
french attorney at law, specialized in the innovative fields (juris  
doctor " tax solutions for innovative companies"), trademark, patent,  
and computer law.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Marc Poussin" <[hidden email]>
> Date: January 12, 2009 3:56:56 AM PST
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Change JSecurity's Name
> Reply-To: [hidden email]
> Hi,
> After cautious reading of that issue i just checked briefly one  
> single element:
> Trademark registration is done trough a "class" system, defined by the
> Nice classification.
> Usually, a trademark is registred trough one or more classes numbered
> from 1 to 45
> The trademark form allow you to define what good or service will be
> covered by the filing, according to the class.
> When a trademark form is filled, you just choose the class  and not
> the subdivision that you intend to protect, and you'll be protected
> against counterfeiting acts for this whole class.
> It appears that even if jsecurity and j-security have a really
> different activity, one being on hardware, the other one on software,
> they both are dependant of class 42 (different subdivision):
> http://www.wipo.int/classifications/nivilo/nice/index.htm
> So, i would recommand a quick trademark filing, especially on class 42
> if you want to preserve the name, especially if:
> -the name is popular and already widely used by apache users
> -j-security (apachie) project is older in a public way than  
> jsecurity (hardware)
> -there is already a wide policy of domain name reservation in favor of
> apache on jsecurity (like .com, .net, .org etc.) because domain names
> could be regarded as anteriorizing a trademark...
> If that name could be used for any identifical/commercial purpose now
> or later, and it's decided not to protect it, changing name would be
> the best option, at least on a trademark law point of view.
> A court argument could always be that they got different activities,
> and that there is (almost) no risk for the public to be deceived. I
> would like to point that, in front of a judge wich doesn't understand
> much on computers (and that shit happens often), that kind of
> argumentation will be quickly dismissed regarding to classes and
> trademark law...
> Concerning google, the trademark is not really an issue anymore,
> because they re so well known that they could argue mainly on
> parasitism, and keep the trademark issues around theyr main services,
> where even if the google could be regarded as a public domain term, it
> wont deprive them from their right to protect against copyright
> infrigment.
> In the same time, i would say that public usage do not allow to do
> anything, just think about Parmesan cheese, and some other French
> wine, and italian ham...
> Cheers
> Marc
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]
>> > wrote:
>>> As for Google, I think they actually have a fairly serious  
>>> problem. "google"
>>> and "googling" have become synonymous with searching for  
>>> information (see
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google or
>>> http://www.reference.com/search?q=Googler). From what I've read  
>>> this is
>>> exactly how a company can lose control of their trademark. I'd  
>>> venture that
>>> if you created a product named "Super Googler" that they would sue  
>>> you, but
>>> given that the term is now in the public domain I'm wondering if  
>>> they'd
>>> actually win. OTOH, you'd be pretty stupid to name your product  
>>> that unless
>>> you want to be sued.
>> You are right that if you don't protect your marks, you loose them.
>> Whether that has happened for Google already or not, is a discussion
>> for the courts...
>> If there is no JSecurity registered as TM or equivalent, then Alan's
>> analogy is way off the mark of realism. And speaking of Google, in
>> today's day and age, people who don't regularly google their marks  
>> and
>> see 'intruders' show up all over the first page, can be argued, are
>> not really interested in preventing others from using the mark.
>> My vote after all this debate is in favor keeping the name, and only
>> act when/if there is a problem.
>> Cheers
>> Niclas
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]