3 ms·

There's a reasonable argument that the trademark hasn't been generalized or abandoned. There's not other project out there using the RubyGems trademark (as far

There's a reasonable argument that the trademark hasn't been generalized or abandoned. There's not other project out there using the RubyGems trademark (as far as I know). As such, OP has a decent argument that there were no previous violations in need of enforcement. Until a week ago, the trademark was (arguably) being used by a community owned project as desired.

Aurornis 1y ago
> Until a week ago, the trademark was (arguably) being used by a community owned project as desired. The community isn’t a legal entity. Saying that it’s owned by a public community with no boundaries or membership is equivalent to saying it’s genericized or abandoned. Even if it was, that would undermine this trademark registration which was registered by a single individual.
- em-bee 1y ago
  that wouldn't matter though, would it? a genericized trademark is not the problem. the problem is ruby central wanting to take control of the name/trademark. if they want the trademark now, they now have to fight, and if in that fight, it is established that nobody gets to own the trademark, then the current trademark registration would have achieved its goal.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    If nobody owns the trademark then they're free to use it. The person who wrote this post tried to register the trademark to prevent them from using it. If the trademark is determined to be abandoned and generic then they cannot stop Ruby Central from using it.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      but ruby central using the trademark is not the problem. as long as everyone else can use it too. but ruby central wants to prevent everyone else to use it, and that's the problem. if the trademark is determined to be generic, then ruby central can not prevent anyone from using it. the goal is not to stop ruby central from using the trademark. the goal is to stop them from claiming ownership.
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      I think the point is to prevent Ruby Central from owning it, not using it
- type0 1y ago
  > owned by a public community with no boundaries or membership is membership in github org is still a membership
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    A GitHub org is not a legal entity.

Aurornis 1y ago

> Until a week ago, the trademark was (arguably) being used by a community owned project as desired. The community isn’t a legal entity. Saying that it’s owned by a public community with no boundaries or membership is equivalent to saying it’s genericized or abandoned. Even if it was, that would undermine this trademark registration which was registered by a single individual.

em-bee 1y ago
that wouldn't matter though, would it? a genericized trademark is not the problem. the problem is ruby central wanting to take control of the name/trademark. if they want the trademark now, they now have to fight, and if in that fight, it is established that nobody gets to own the trademark, then the current trademark registration would have achieved its goal.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  If nobody owns the trademark then they're free to use it. The person who wrote this post tried to register the trademark to prevent them from using it. If the trademark is determined to be abandoned and generic then they cannot stop Ruby Central from using it.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    but ruby central using the trademark is not the problem. as long as everyone else can use it too. but ruby central wants to prevent everyone else to use it, and that's the problem. if the trademark is determined to be generic, then ruby central can not prevent anyone from using it. the goal is not to stop ruby central from using the trademark. the goal is to stop them from claiming ownership.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    I think the point is to prevent Ruby Central from owning it, not using it
type0 1y ago
> owned by a public community with no boundaries or membership is membership in github org is still a membership
- Aurornis 1y ago
  A GitHub org is not a legal entity.