HARRY@MARIST.BITNET (A. Harry Williams) (02/03/90)
Jim, I'm cc'ing you just to be sure, even though I believe you are on this list. Question: Is the name Bitnet(or BITNET) a trademark? Reason behind the question: I was reading a trade journal, and an ad for a commericial mail system talked about connectivity to BITNET. Other proprietary systems had their trademarks listed, but not Bitnet. I see from previous Board minutes that there was work under way to get a trademark, but I cannot find a section that says one was finally gotten. (Doesn't mean it doesn't exists, just that I need new glasses.) Question #2: I assume that ownership of this trademark is with CREN, Inc now. (previously with Bitnet, Inc which no longer exists as a legal entity.) Correct? Question #3: Does CREN have any other trademarks? Question #4: Should someone be writing to both the vendor and the magazine in question about the lack of trademark notification? If so, who? and should those of us who notice these things direct such findings somewhere? Question #5: If Bitnet is a registered trademark, is it possible that CREN can dictate what connectivity to it means, ie can CREN require that a vendor claiming connectivity must support RFC822? Thanks, Harry
CONKLIN@BITNIC.BITNET (Jim Conklin) (02/09/90)
Harry Williams asks if BITNET is trademarked. My understanding is that it is,
though I can't put my hand on the confirming document immediately. And, yes,
CREN is the owner of the trademark, since it's the corporate continuation
of BITNET, Inc. Trademarking of CREN and Corporation for Research and
Educational Networking is in progress. No others that I recall.
Probably someone should be writing to vendors and magazines which don't
properly show the trademark symbol when they use these trademarks. Any
volunteers out there; we certainly don't have time for that level of
follow-up at the moment!
I don't believe the trademark ownership gives us the right to define
standards, but operation of the network probably does if the Board decides
it wants to do so (it's on the agenda!)
JimMAINTCMS@PUCC.BITNET (John Wagner) (02/09/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 16:51:16 EST Jim Conklin said: > Probably someone should be writing to vendors and magazines which don't >properly show the trademark symbol when they use these trademarks. Any >volunteers out there; we certainly don't have time for that level of >follow-up at the moment! Writing to vendors and magazines is the job of Cren Corporate Counsel. They may legally say they are reprsenting the board. A volunteer cannot do this. BITNIC could act as a collection agency for reports of trademark misuse (which it would then forward to counsel). This seems in line with their acting as an information center (to the board). > I don't believe the trademark ownership gives us the right to define >standards, but operation of the network probably does if the Board decides >it wants to do so (it's on the agenda!) It may not give you the right to define standards, but it does give you the right to not allow some vendor to use it in their advertising. This means that instead of writing: We support all the protocols in the world, including those used by BITNET ... they would have to write We support all the protocols in the world, including those used by the B.. network. This may seem like a small thing, but it is actually fairly powerful if the board is willing to *LICENSE* use of the trademark (for dollars, pesos, or whatever the local currency is).
SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Richard A. Schafer) (02/09/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 18:08:53 EST John Wagner said: >On Thu, 8 Feb 90 16:51:16 EST Jim Conklin said: >> Probably someone should be writing to vendors and magazines which don't >>properly show the trademark symbol when they use these trademarks. Any >>volunteers out there; we certainly don't have time for that level of >>follow-up at the moment! > >Writing to vendors and magazines is the job of Cren Corporate Counsel. >They may legally say they are reprsenting the board. A volunteer >cannot do this. While I agree that BITNIC has no time (or business) dealing with this issue directly, John is absolutely right in saying that BITNIC ought to forward reports of trademark misuse to the CREN Corporate Counsel, who presumably is being paid to take care of things like that. In fact, trademark law precedents make it clear that if CREN does *not* pursue this avenue of protecting our trademark, then the trademark will cease to have any legal enforceability whatsoever quite quickly. Now for the bad news: folks, this applies to us, too! How many of you are publishing newsletters, etc., with BITNET in them without noting that BITNET is a (lord, I hope) registered trademark of CREN? Yes, that is also a violation of CREN's trademark rights, I believe, even though we are BITNET members. By the way: I believe that we need to have an approved capitalization for this trademark, although if they were intelligent, the lawyers had us trademark almost every capitalization possible, I suppose. Is it BITNET, Bitnet, BitNet, BiTNET (using the NeXT precedent), or what? Just to make sure we're all doing it right, BITNET is a registered trademark of CREN, Inc., right? Richard P.S. Yes, I know that many people don't bother to note trademarks like UNIX(*), but that doesn't make it right. UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (I think). Richard
CONKLIN@BITNIC.BITNET (Jim Conklin) (02/13/90)
>On Thu, 8 Feb 90 16:51:16 EST Jim Conklin said: >> Probably someone should be writing to vendors and magazines which don't >>properly show the trademark symbol when they use these trademarks. Any >>volunteers out there; we certainly don't have time for that level of >>follow-up at the moment! > >Writing to vendors and magazines is the job of Cren Corporate Counsel. >They may legally say they are reprsenting the board. A volunteer >cannot do this. > >BITNIC could act as a collection agency for reports of trademark >misuse (which it would then forward to counsel). This seems in line >with their acting as an information center (to the board). > >> I don't believe the trademark ownership gives us the right to define >>standards, but operation of the network probably does if the Board decides >>it wants to do so (it's on the agenda!) > >It may not give you the right to define standards, but it does give >you the right to not allow some vendor to use it in their advertising. >This means that instead of writing: > > We support all the protocols in the world, including those used by > BITNET ... > >they would have to write > > We support all the protocols in the world, including those used by > the B.. network. > >This may seem like a small thing, but it is actually fairly powerful >if the board is willing to *LICENSE* use of the trademark (for >dollars, pesos, or whatever the local currency is). Good points, John. Thanks. Jim