Consistently list all trademarks in Trademark Policy document

VERIFIED FIXED

Status

www.mozilla.org
General
--
minor
VERIFIED FIXED
12 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC), Assigned: gerv)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(2 obsolete attachments)

The Trademark Policy document lists Camino, XUL, Bugzilla, Sunbird, and SeaMonkey inconsistently through the policy document. The terms appear in some places but not in others. They should be consistent throughout the document.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
(Reporter)

Comment 1

12 years ago
Created attachment 250386 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

This patch fixes the problem. It also makes the assumption that XUL is a trademark but not a registered trademark, based on a search at uspto.gov and that "Mozilla Suite" isn't a full trademarked term, but that it should read "Mozilla(r) Suite". 

That second assumption might be incorrect.
Attachment #250386 - Flags: review?(reed)
Comment on attachment 250386 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

I don't like assumptions. Gerv, is this ok?
Attachment #250386 - Flags: review?(reed) → review?(gerv)
(Reporter)

Comment 3

12 years ago
Gerv, when I hear word back from you (specifically on the second assumption I made), I'm also going to attach a patch which updates the list on m.o/foundation/trademarks/faq.html.
I'd go with the second assumption for now. 

Please can you change the patch to put each trademark in the definitive list on a separate line? Then, in future revisions, it makes it more obvious what has changed in the list when one does a diff.

It's certainly right that we need to make the policy reflect the truth (particularly as the policy promises we will). But Frank and cbrady should check the list to make sure it's complete.

Gerv
Attachment #250386 - Flags: review?(hecker)
Attachment #250386 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Attachment #250386 - Flags: review?(cbrady)

Comment 5

12 years ago
Comment on attachment 250386 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

The patch needs to mention that we also consider the SeaMonkey and Sunbird logos to be trademarks (as we've filed applications for these). We should also add the Camino logo as well IMO, even though AFAIK we haven't yet filed a formal application. Also, is there any point in listing "Mozilla Suite" as a trademark, given that "Mozilla" is already a trademark? (AFAIK we haven't done a separate trademark application for "Mozilla Suite".)
Attachment #250386 - Flags: review?(hecker) → review-
(Reporter)

Comment 6

12 years ago
(In reply to comment #4)
> Please can you change the patch to put each trademark in the definitive list on
> a separate line? Then, in future revisions, it makes it more obvious what has
> changed in the list when one does a diff.

I'll put an unordered list at the beginning of the document and list each trademark on its own line.

(In reply to comment #5)
> The patch needs to mention that we also consider the SeaMonkey and Sunbird
> logos to be trademarks (as we've filed applications for these). We should also

By having the (TM), I thought that was considering them trademarks. The document should list them as (R) until they're registered, as I understand it. The same applies to Thunderbird, I'd add.

I'd prefer to just add an "application filed" in parenthesis around those that may soon become (R) but are still (TM).

> add the Camino logo as well IMO, even though AFAIK we haven't yet filed a
> formal application. Also, is there any point in listing "Mozilla Suite" as a
> trademark, given that "Mozilla" is already a trademark? (AFAIK we haven't done
> a separate trademark application for "Mozilla Suite".)

I'll add the Camino logo to the next revision.

I'm more than happy to remove the Mozilla Suite. I simply kept it because it was already listed.

The next revision of this will do the things I said above unless I hear word back that this is incorrect. In addition, I'm just going to remove the list in various spots and have one definitive list after the first paragraph, i.e. "As used in this memo, "trademarks" refers to the following wordmarks and logos:"
(Reporter)

Updated

12 years ago
Attachment #250386 - Flags: review?(cbrady)
(Reporter)

Comment 7

12 years ago
Created attachment 250619 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v2

This patch does everything I say in comment 6. It still lists the "Mozilla Suite logo" since that logo is different than the Mozilla logo.

Requesting review from Frank.
Attachment #250386 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #250619 - Flags: review?(hecker)
(Reporter)

Comment 8

12 years ago
Frank, have you had a chance to look at this patch? Are there any other change I need to make?
(Reporter)

Comment 9

11 years ago
Pinging Frank again to see if he's had a chance to look at this... Is there someone else that needs to approve these changes?
They are listed here:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq.html
under Question 2. Is that good enough?

Gerv
XUL's not listed there. Additionally, this bug is about listing them consistently all over instead of a few here and a few there. Listing them all in an actual, you know, list, seems a lot more clear than inline in a sentence.

I see that this patch is now out of date (SeaMonkey is an (R) now). Barring that one change, what else is wrong with this patch?
I've emailed cbeard and cbrady to check this is OK with them.

BTW, there isn't really a "Mozilla suite logo"; that should probably be "SeaMonkey logo", which is an (R). In fact, we really need the (R) vs (TM) status of all the logos.

Gerv
I listed "Mozilla suite logo" because it was listed elsewhere and I wasn't using this patch to clean up the declared trademarks, just to list them consistently.
There's not much point in checking in a known-incorrect list.

I haven't heard objections from cbeard or cbrady (and they are both now CCed) so if you produce a list which is as accurate as we know how, then it should be fine to check it in.

Gerv
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Attachment #250619 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #250619 - Flags: review?(hecker)
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Assignee: samuel.sidler → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
I'm just going to resolve this as INVALID. Anyone is free to reopen it if they feel like taking it on.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Assignee: nobody → gerv
This was fixed by Gerv on August 29, 2007.
Resolution: INVALID → FIXED
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Product: mozilla.org → Websites
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org

Updated

5 years ago
Blocks: 875404
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.