W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > May 2023

Re: use of w3c logo, did-doge

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 17:13:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLf=qNYVGxc09E1+KvfvxwruzFoQRZOCxc69Xu3X+ZVgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wayne Chang <wayne@spruceid.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>, "Rocco, Gregory" <rocco@spruceid.com>
čt 4. 5. 2023 v 17:08 odesílatel Wayne Chang <wayne@spruceid.com> napsal:

> Hi all, in recognition of the minutes we'll never get back from our lives
> due to this thread, Rocco and I are proud to release the following upgrade
> to did-doge:
> https://github.com/spruceid/did-doge/pull/14
> https://spruceid.github.io/did-doge/

IANAL, but It's still in github.  I dont know whether or not that makes a


> Best,
> - Wayne
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:43 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 3:39 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I believe associating the W3C logo with Dogecoin could have a negative
>> impact on this group, as Dogecoin has a less than favorable reputation.
>> Just to weigh in on this thread -- anyone speaking that hasn't engaged
>> legal counsel is out of their depth. What may seem like a simple case
>> is not.
>> There is a conflict here between W3C's trademark (and the
>> dodge-derived logo is begging them to enforce their trademark lest
>> they lose it), fair use, and use of trademarks and copyrights for the
>> purposes of parody.
>> There are potentially good arguments both ways, but the second we
>> summon the lawyers, we've all lost. We shouldn't pull W3C staff in
>> because (speaking as a W3C Member that pays dues, which are then used
>> to pay staff and legal counsel), this topic is a waste of W3C Member
>> funding. It also calls into question W3C's trademark and the
>> enforcement thereof (if you don't enforce your trademark, you can lose
>> it).
>> Wayne, you might consider (and this is clearly not legal advice;
>> you'll want to consult counsel), asserting that the did-doge logo
>> falls under a parody defense, you claim no commercial rights, you have
>> no products or plan of any products that use the logo, and state
>> clearly why you don't believe that this dilutes W3C's brand or causes
>> "customer confusion". IOW, make it clear that this is a joke that
>> you're not profiting off of and that doesn't cause harm or dilution to
>> W3C's brand/reputation... or, just change the logo. :)
>> This stuff can get really messy and complicated. Case in point,
>> another dog-related trademark dilution case that recently worked its
>> way through the courts with surprising outcomes:
>> https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trademark-parody-and-freedom-of-speech-70581/
>> Just my $0.02, I am not a lawyer.
>> -- manu
>> --
>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2023 15:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 4 May 2023 15:13:59 UTC