4 ms·
I don't really see how Canonical can take away the right to use a trademark nominatively[1], as provided by law, just by declaring your rights to be gone in a p
by Bill_Dimm 13y ago
I don't really see how Canonical can take away the right to use a trademark nominatively[1], as provided by law, just by declaring your rights to be gone in a policy.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)
- comice 13y agoI suspect and hope that you are right. But if you were in his position would you fancy fighting it?
- Bill_Dimm 13y agoThat really depends on whether or not I could afford to (the sad reality of our legal system). Fortunately, the EFF seems to be helping him: https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trademark-law-to-silence-critics-of-its-privacy-decisions/ https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trade...
- dragonwriter 13y agoThey can't. OTOH, limitations on exclusive rights in trademarks (or any other form of IP) vary a lot by jurisdiction, and within a jurisdiction over time; its fairly common for organizations to state policies where the domain of things for which permission is stated to be required overlaps the area of limitations on the right in question; to the extent those overlap, the stated policy has no effect, it only has effect in the intersection of the area where the company asserts a restriction and the area where local law gives the company control.