Re: use of w3c logo, did-doge

I too support keeping Wayne out of the doge house

On May 4, 2023 at 9:19:42 AM, Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>>>>
>>>