On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
Arne Klempert wrote:
On 10/28/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron [email protected] wrote:
After looking at it, they are clearly trying to induce confusion between their wiki offer, the gnu gpl software mediawiki, wikipedia, wiktionnary and wikiquote.
The text is a little bit confusing ("the new product" might sound like it's their product), but I see no reason for your "trying to induce" thing. And I really don't see any trademark violation here. Of course we have to defend our trademarks but we also should avoid trademark paranoia.
Well, a good first step would be mentioning that mediawiki is a registered trademark from another company, and clearly explaining that
I can't find any registered trademark regarding Mediawiki on the uspto.gov website. I know that trademark registration is not always mandatory but just wondering.
is a third party software that they did not develop.
If they fully comply with the GNU General Public License[1], I can't see the issue. It won't be the first time that a front-cover web page is trying to induce confusion regarding a free software (did you remember the Dansguardian issue ? (look at their download page)).
[1] Can someone make a verification that they comply with the GNU GPL ?
When you look here : http://www.cheaphostingdirectory.com/news-webhosting-provider-aplus-net-laun...
As you say he actual text is confusing, which is exactly the criteria for trademark violations. I don't say we should hurry to the courts, but we should ask them to be more precise.
Wouldn't be better to focus only on the GNU GPL compliance than "playing" with trademark stuff (as this is a different battle field ;-) ?
just my 0.02 EUR,
adulau