Re: use of w3c logo, did-doge

This mailing list is also archived and available so that Wayne’s future
defense attorneys can corroborate the timeline and argue that he acted
swiftly when this indecency was brought to his attention.

God willing, that should allow his defense to argue for a reduced sentence.
Wayne, I’m happy to go on record that I shall serve as a character witness
when the need arises

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:15 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
> difference.
>
>
> https://github.com/spruceid/did-doge/commit/14beee22b0a3e49f1f0521e04165d7023c1cffe5
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>>
>>