Re: use of w3c logo, did-doge

čt 4. 5. 2023 v 18:28 odesílatel Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> napsal:

> Can we now officially close this topic?
>

My question re respec is answered.

I suggest we consider the topic of did-doge outside the scope of the CG,
and proceed to focus on other matters.


>
>
> Mike Prorock
> mesur.io
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023, 10:19 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/
>>>>>
>>>>