Comments on: The “Web 2.0″ trademark affair http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/ An Irishman's Fiery Tue, 17 May 2011 19:12:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: david jones http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-126 david jones Wed, 31 May 2006 22:30:21 +0000 http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/#comment-126 CMP has *not* tried to enforce this supposed trademark in several other notable cases - for example the Mesh Canada Web 2.0 Conference and the Enterprise Ireland Web 2.0 Conference. They've waited to try enforcement on a small non-profit that could have been expected to comply in the face of potentially large legal costs. Did you know CMP had applied for a trademark? No? Surely if you're trying to protect a brand an obvious first step is to make it clear that you are trying to trademark? CMP themselves get it wrong on the Web Conference 2006 website, http://www.web2con.com/. The TM is clearly next to the word 'Conference'. The trademark application is for the phrase 'Web 2.0' on the context of live events. CMP has *not* tried to enforce this supposed trademark in several other notable cases – for example the Mesh Canada Web 2.0 Conference and the Enterprise Ireland Web 2.0 Conference.

They’ve waited to try enforcement on a small non-profit that could have been expected to comply in the face of potentially large legal costs.

Did you know CMP had applied for a trademark? No? Surely if you’re trying to protect a brand an obvious first step is to make it clear that you are trying to trademark?

CMP themselves get it wrong on the Web Conference 2006 website, http://www.web2con.com/. The TM is clearly next to the word ‘Conference’. The trademark application is for the phrase ‘Web 2.0′ on the context of live events.

]]> By: Michele http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Michele Fri, 26 May 2006 18:14:44 +0000 http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/#comment-93 On a totally unrelated note your captcha breaks the navigation completely....... On a totally unrelated note your captcha breaks the navigation completely…….

]]> By: Michele http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-92 Michele Fri, 26 May 2006 18:13:56 +0000 http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/#comment-92 It seems that O'Reilly have applied for a trademark twice in the past 3 years and the most recent one is still pending. It seems that O’Reilly have applied for a trademark twice in the past 3 years and the most recent one is still pending.

]]> By: Bernie Goldbach http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-91 Bernie Goldbach Fri, 26 May 2006 00:41:38 +0000 http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/#comment-91 From personal experience, I had to file trademarks and designs for protection within the EC with the European Harmonization Office in Alicante, Spain. If an infringement for trademark or registered mark goes to court in the EU, the Alicante filing serves as the means to adjudicate the dispute. From personal experience, I had to file trademarks and designs for protection within the EC with the European Harmonization Office in Alicante, Spain. If an infringement for trademark or registered mark goes to court in the EU, the Alicante filing serves as the means to adjudicate the dispute.

]]> By: colmmacc http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-90 colmmacc Fri, 26 May 2006 00:23:20 +0000 http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/#comment-90 CMP claim to be the creator and organiser of the O'Reilly Web 2.0 conferences. I don't have any reason to doubt that, and I can't see why they wouldn't be entitled to a trademark in that respect. It makes a lot of sense for them to do so, otherwise they would have less defence against a genuinely confusing competing conference. The other thing is that with trademarks, you really do have to persue all potential breaches you are made aware of. Otherwise when it comes time for you to use your trade mark in a more serious situation then it will fail to be of much use, because the opposition can claim that the action is arbitrary and that the trade mark is not generally enforced. A perfectly acceptable solution, for example, would be TCM to license the use of the trademark to IT@Cork for some nominal fee (1 euro would do fine), which might satisfy the requirements of all parties. That is though, if the trade mark will even be applicable in Ireland. Do you have some source for your information regarding jurisdiction? I can't find anything about it. Based on guessing, there has to be some likelyhood that it's a Madrid Protocol (WIPO) application, so the EC CTM procedures may not be neccessary. IT@Cork should be grateful for the publiclity though, and I'm sure it will create some commaradery and buzz. Definitely won't be there though, it really does look mind-numbing. CMP claim to be the creator and organiser of the O’Reilly Web 2.0 conferences. I don’t have any reason to doubt that, and I can’t see why they wouldn’t be entitled to a trademark in that respect. It makes a lot of sense for them to do so, otherwise they would have less defence against a genuinely confusing competing conference.

The other thing is that with trademarks, you really do have to persue all potential breaches you are made aware of. Otherwise when it comes time for you to use your trade mark in a more serious situation then it will fail to be of much use, because the opposition can claim that the action is arbitrary and that the trade mark is not generally enforced.

A perfectly acceptable solution, for example, would be TCM to license the use of the trademark to IT@Cork for some nominal fee (1 euro would do fine), which might satisfy the requirements of all parties.

That is though, if the trade mark will even be applicable in Ireland. Do you have some source for your information regarding jurisdiction? I can’t find anything about it. Based on guessing, there has to be some likelyhood that it’s a Madrid Protocol (WIPO) application, so the EC CTM procedures may not be neccessary.

IT@Cork should be grateful for the publiclity though, and I’m sure it will create some commaradery and buzz. Definitely won’t be there though, it really does look mind-numbing.

]]> By: Bernard Goldbach http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-89 Bernard Goldbach Fri, 26 May 2006 00:09:08 +0000 http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/05/25/the-web-20-trademark-affair/#comment-89 FACT. In general usage, CMP is not commonly associated as the sole source of Web 2.0 conferences. FACT. Neither CMP nor O'Reilly own the adjective "Web 2.0" when pre-pended to an event. FACT. If CMP gain TM protection to "Web 2.0 Conference" it will not cover Europe unless they also file for TM and Registered mark status under EU conventions. IT@Cork should be grateful to CMP for increasing the all-around buzz about their event on 8 June. See you there? FACT. In general usage, CMP is not commonly associated as the sole source of Web 2.0 conferences.

FACT. Neither CMP nor O’Reilly own the adjective “Web 2.0″ when pre-pended to an event.

FACT. If CMP gain TM protection to “Web 2.0 Conference” it will not cover Europe unless they also file for TM and Registered mark status under EU conventions.

IT@Cork should be grateful to CMP for increasing the all-around buzz about their event on 8 June. See you there?

]]>