7 ms·

Linux distro creator tries to enforce a trademark he doesn't own

64 points by ddtaylor 5y ago

phendrenad2 5y ago
Wow, what a hostile way to ask for a name change: go straight for the legal angle.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  > We already have enough issues with people thinking the old “elementary Tweaks” was something official or made by elementary—which is why it was rebranded by its developer to “Pantheon Tweaks.” Creating a new project under the elementary name that is not made by elementary is inviting similar issues and could contribute to dilution of the elementary brand and trademarks. > https://elementary.io/brand https://elementary.io/brand > Please rename this project to something that does not include the elementary name to avoid similar issues. I don't see how that's hostile.
  - iamcreasy 5y ago
    You only need to read the follow up comments.
    - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
      I did and the only hostility I see is from krisives, frankly.
      - iamcreasy 5y ago
        Care to elaborate?
wizzwizz4 5y ago
In fairness, trademarks don't have to be registered to be trademarks (edit: as cassidyjames said, but I skimmed over). Also: > but I absolutely do not want to go the legal threat route and that's not what this issue was; this issue is me requesting you respect the elementary name and don't use it for something that is not produced by elementary. Because as we've seen repeatedly in the past, it causes real user confusion about the source and endorsement of software.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Yep, came to say exactly this. cassidyjames seems to be completely in the right here, and isn't even doing anything crazy. krisives is the problem.
  - darig 5y ago
    cassidyjames seems to be trying to remove an adjective from the english language permitted for use by others... the proof of their wrongness seems elementary.
- aDfbrtVt 5y ago
  Agreed, the request was very polite and seems totally reasonable. While I don’t think you can call digging up public fillings dox-ing, I don’t see any reason for the developer not to respect the request.
- spinax 5y ago
  https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFac... Page 11 > Is federal registration of my mark required? > No. In the United States, parties are not required to register their marks to obtain protectable rights. You can establish "common law" rights in a mark based solely on use of the mark in commerce, without a registration. I have read that the US is also "first use" and not "first to file", eliminating a race to registration.
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    Correct, but those marks are limited to the specific areas where you practice business, whereas federal trademarks grant you the mark outside of only the areas where you practice business.
    - chrismcb 5y ago
      Federal trademarks grant you the mark in areas you apply for. And you can still lose it.
huibf 5y ago
LOL, he waltzes in like a mafioso and then turns into a puppy when the other guy proves he doesn't have a trademark. And then he calls linking to the legal document where he was denied the trademark DOXING!
- notyourwork 5y ago
  The thread is a great example of what not to do in the open source community. I don't have much context but the conversation was disappointing to read.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cmeacham98 5y ago
May I suggest "Unofficial elementaryOS Tweaks"? I think it would solve the problem (basically impossible to believe it is official), and would be legal, at least where I live in the US (falls under "nominative use").
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  Would it be legal though considering their brand name is still being used as part of the name?
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    IANAL, but I believe it would fall under fair use, specifically nominative use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use The existing name might 'suggest sponsorship or endorsement' by Elementary Inc, but my version does not.
    - ddtaylor 5y ago
      Thanks that's a great link.
- rzzzt 5y ago
  The FAQ section in README.md could also clarify this up front: "Q: Is this official/endorsed? A: Nope"
- cassidyjames 5y ago
  Yeah that would be fine. :)
Razengan 5y ago
Spicy. Drama only 35 minutes (or 6 hours) old and it’s already blowing up here at 1 UPM (upvote per minute).
ISV_Damocles 5y ago
This has certainly soured my view of the Elementary OS project. Someone has created a project to help himself and other users and chose an obvious name for it, then a representative from the company behind it wants the name changed and threatens legal action if they don't? Regardless of the actual trademark status at hand, they decided that they would rather burn a bridge with a dedicated user who spent their free time to improve their product and in a way to provoke fear of legal costs. Why wouldn't he look for supporting data to offset that legal threat? They're literally abusing the power imbalance in this situation to try to get things done their way, and I don't understand how anyone in here is siding with them?
- cassidyjames 5y ago
  There was never any legal threat, in fact I try to clarify that repeatedly. The user kept steering it to a poor understanding of trademark law and then publicly uploaded documents with a physical address in response. This user has been repeatedly disruptive in the subreddit and Slack before this incident, and then they go and publicly doxx someone? There is zero tolerance for that behavior.
  - ISV_Damocles 5y ago
    If that was true, you never would have brought up trademarks in the very first post of the issue? You don't "want" to use the legal threat of trademark law, but you'll dangle it in front to try and coerce your desired behavior. And there's no doxxing here. That's a legal document he pulled up that's publicly available.
    - cassidyjames 5y ago
      Diluting a brand and trademark is something that can and does happen and does not imply a threat whatsoever. I clarified that multiple times. And uploading legal filings with private addresses in them and publicly associating with a GitHub user account in response to me opening a GitHub issue is absolutely doxxing. It was not necessary at all, and they refuse to remove it.
staysafeanon 5y ago
Wow elementaryos in full lockdown damage control mode! Banned krisives from their Slack instance (where they told him to DM them) and also banned him from the elementaryos subreddit. Now this story has been [flagged] here. Orwellian. I will never touch anything elementaryos.
- cassidyjames 5y ago
  The user (who appears to have posted this link, btw, based on recent post history) has been disruptive in the subreddit and Slack in the past, and then literally started publicly doxxing _and_ going around to social media to draw public attention to the post. I messaged them on Slack and they ignored it, continued to post in the thread, and continued posting on social media to draw attention to it. There's zero tolerance for doxxing in the elementary community, so they've been banned in accordance to the elementary Code of Conduct.
  - iamcreasy 5y ago
    You are in the right if that's all true. But the fact that you are banning him/her right when there is a ongoing disagreement makes me question the validity of your claim.
    - cassidyjames 5y ago
      They uploaded documents with my personal information in them when it was not even necessary to discuss the issue. They refuse to remove the documents at my request. They continue to draw attention to the post on social media. That's absolutely ban-worthy behavior.
      - ddtaylor 5y ago
        Weren't those public documents you submitted for a trademark request?
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        Those documents were public, and central evidense upon which an argument rests.
nicholashead 5y ago
The response from the repo owner is so bizarre. I believe Cassidy presented his viewpoint (on behalf of the org) pretty straightforward and "nicely", and it feels like the repo maintainer is just trying to play the technicality/gotcha game, and not respond to the original request. From a discussion standpoint, krisives is indirectly saying they don't believe there's a valid trademark in here, and so they're indirectly saying they don't want to change the name. OK. If you have no intentions of complying with the polite request, just say so. It's sort of a jerk move (in my opinion), but OK I guess. Then elementary can bring about legal stuff if they wanna go that route. Why cause all this drama? Also, this sort of thing happens quite often in the community, for open source projects and not. Being polite to other OSS maintainers goes a long way.
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  Which part do you think was "a jerk move"
  - nicholashead 5y ago
    I think you mis-read me - what I was saying is, if the repo maintainers wanna just say no, we don't wanna comply - they're fine to do that I guess, I personally think it would be sort of a jerk move. Renaming something on Github is trivial. It's a bizarre hill to die on.
slenk 5y ago
That thread really degraded fast. I think maybe elementary needs to graduate to middle school before more people come to the playground. (bad puns, seeing myself out)

64 points by ddtaylor 5y ago

phendrenad2 5y ago

Wow, what a hostile way to ask for a name change: go straight for the legal angle.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> We already have enough issues with people thinking the old “elementary Tweaks” was something official or made by elementary—which is why it was rebranded by its developer to “Pantheon Tweaks.” Creating a new project under the elementary name that is not made by elementary is inviting similar issues and could contribute to dilution of the elementary brand and trademarks. > https://elementary.io/brand https://elementary.io/brand > Please rename this project to something that does not include the elementary name to avoid similar issues. I don't see how that's hostile.
- iamcreasy 5y ago
  You only need to read the follow up comments.
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    I did and the only hostility I see is from krisives, frankly.
    - iamcreasy 5y ago
      Care to elaborate?

wizzwizz4 5y ago

In fairness, trademarks don't have to be registered to be trademarks (edit: as cassidyjames said, but I skimmed over). Also: > but I absolutely do not want to go the legal threat route and that's not what this issue was; this issue is me requesting you respect the elementary name and don't use it for something that is not produced by elementary. Because as we've seen repeatedly in the past, it causes real user confusion about the source and endorsement of software.

jaywalk 5y ago
Yep, came to say exactly this. cassidyjames seems to be completely in the right here, and isn't even doing anything crazy. krisives is the problem.
- darig 5y ago
  cassidyjames seems to be trying to remove an adjective from the english language permitted for use by others... the proof of their wrongness seems elementary.
aDfbrtVt 5y ago
Agreed, the request was very polite and seems totally reasonable. While I don’t think you can call digging up public fillings dox-ing, I don’t see any reason for the developer not to respect the request.
spinax 5y ago
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFac... Page 11 > Is federal registration of my mark required? > No. In the United States, parties are not required to register their marks to obtain protectable rights. You can establish "common law" rights in a mark based solely on use of the mark in commerce, without a registration. I have read that the US is also "first use" and not "first to file", eliminating a race to registration.
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  Correct, but those marks are limited to the specific areas where you practice business, whereas federal trademarks grant you the mark outside of only the areas where you practice business.
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    Federal trademarks grant you the mark in areas you apply for. And you can still lose it.

huibf 5y ago

LOL, he waltzes in like a mafioso and then turns into a puppy when the other guy proves he doesn't have a trademark. And then he calls linking to the legal document where he was denied the trademark DOXING!

notyourwork 5y ago
The thread is a great example of what not to do in the open source community. I don't have much context but the conversation was disappointing to read.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cmeacham98 5y ago

May I suggest "Unofficial elementaryOS Tweaks"? I think it would solve the problem (basically impossible to believe it is official), and would be legal, at least where I live in the US (falls under "nominative use").

ddtaylor 5y ago
Would it be legal though considering their brand name is still being used as part of the name?
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  IANAL, but I believe it would fall under fair use, specifically nominative use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use The existing name might 'suggest sponsorship or endorsement' by Elementary Inc, but my version does not.
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    Thanks that's a great link.
rzzzt 5y ago
The FAQ section in README.md could also clarify this up front: "Q: Is this official/endorsed? A: Nope"
cassidyjames 5y ago
Yeah that would be fine. :)

Razengan 5y ago

Spicy. Drama only 35 minutes (or 6 hours) old and it’s already blowing up here at 1 UPM (upvote per minute).

ISV_Damocles 5y ago

This has certainly soured my view of the Elementary OS project. Someone has created a project to help himself and other users and chose an obvious name for it, then a representative from the company behind it wants the name changed and threatens legal action if they don't? Regardless of the actual trademark status at hand, they decided that they would rather burn a bridge with a dedicated user who spent their free time to improve their product and in a way to provoke fear of legal costs. Why wouldn't he look for supporting data to offset that legal threat? They're literally abusing the power imbalance in this situation to try to get things done their way, and I don't understand how anyone in here is siding with them?

cassidyjames 5y ago
There was never any legal threat, in fact I try to clarify that repeatedly. The user kept steering it to a poor understanding of trademark law and then publicly uploaded documents with a physical address in response. This user has been repeatedly disruptive in the subreddit and Slack before this incident, and then they go and publicly doxx someone? There is zero tolerance for that behavior.
- ISV_Damocles 5y ago
  If that was true, you never would have brought up trademarks in the very first post of the issue? You don't "want" to use the legal threat of trademark law, but you'll dangle it in front to try and coerce your desired behavior. And there's no doxxing here. That's a legal document he pulled up that's publicly available.
  - cassidyjames 5y ago
    Diluting a brand and trademark is something that can and does happen and does not imply a threat whatsoever. I clarified that multiple times. And uploading legal filings with private addresses in them and publicly associating with a GitHub user account in response to me opening a GitHub issue is absolutely doxxing. It was not necessary at all, and they refuse to remove it.

staysafeanon 5y ago

Wow elementaryos in full lockdown damage control mode! Banned krisives from their Slack instance (where they told him to DM them) and also banned him from the elementaryos subreddit. Now this story has been [flagged] here. Orwellian. I will never touch anything elementaryos.

cassidyjames 5y ago
The user (who appears to have posted this link, btw, based on recent post history) has been disruptive in the subreddit and Slack in the past, and then literally started publicly doxxing _and_ going around to social media to draw public attention to the post. I messaged them on Slack and they ignored it, continued to post in the thread, and continued posting on social media to draw attention to it. There's zero tolerance for doxxing in the elementary community, so they've been banned in accordance to the elementary Code of Conduct.
- iamcreasy 5y ago
  You are in the right if that's all true. But the fact that you are banning him/her right when there is a ongoing disagreement makes me question the validity of your claim.
  - cassidyjames 5y ago
    They uploaded documents with my personal information in them when it was not even necessary to discuss the issue. They refuse to remove the documents at my request. They continue to draw attention to the post on social media. That's absolutely ban-worthy behavior.
    - ddtaylor 5y ago
      Weren't those public documents you submitted for a trademark request?
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      Those documents were public, and central evidense upon which an argument rests.

nicholashead 5y ago

The response from the repo owner is so bizarre. I believe Cassidy presented his viewpoint (on behalf of the org) pretty straightforward and "nicely", and it feels like the repo maintainer is just trying to play the technicality/gotcha game, and not respond to the original request. From a discussion standpoint, krisives is indirectly saying they don't believe there's a valid trademark in here, and so they're indirectly saying they don't want to change the name. OK. If you have no intentions of complying with the polite request, just say so. It's sort of a jerk move (in my opinion), but OK I guess. Then elementary can bring about legal stuff if they wanna go that route. Why cause all this drama? Also, this sort of thing happens quite often in the community, for open source projects and not. Being polite to other OSS maintainers goes a long way.

ddtaylor 5y ago
Which part do you think was "a jerk move"
- nicholashead 5y ago
  I think you mis-read me - what I was saying is, if the repo maintainers wanna just say no, we don't wanna comply - they're fine to do that I guess, I personally think it would be sort of a jerk move. Renaming something on Github is trivial. It's a bizarre hill to die on.

slenk 5y ago

That thread really degraded fast. I think maybe elementary needs to graduate to middle school before more people come to the playground. (bad puns, seeing myself out)