incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
Date Thu, 03 Nov 2011 01:53:46 GMT
I agree with Marcus about the umbrella use of the site.  However, I think it 
is important to stop crafting trademark notices.  There should be review of 
the notices that are being put at the bottom of http:// * pages 
as site cutover happens, but it can only be what the legal and trademark folks 
at ASF say is the proper wording.

I recommend review of <> (not the intended public 
URL - this is a place for reviewing of migrated content before the actual 
cut-over of http:// * content to Apache custody). What Dave has 
at the bottom 3 lines seems quite close to factual, pending legal and 
trademark review. There also needs to be review of whether "registered 
trademark" and "trademark" and (r) vs TM are properly used with respect to 
Apache marks (including now) before live cut-over.

There is also a rather long textual explanation proposed to be at the bottom 
of such pages.  Review of that here would be valuable, keeping in mind that it 
must be all about the podling and incubation for now and speaking of a 
"product" of the incubator podling may be a bit dodgy.

It might be cleaner to do that with fewer words and use the feather+incubator 
image in the top banner to link to the Apache Podling Status 
page.  A text link in the bottom note would work also. It might be easier to 
keep that target page maintained and updated over time, along with providing 
the translations that folks are asking for as well. The note could be 
translated, perhaps.  I think translating trademark notices is trickier.  I 
notice that Oracle kept the bottom banner of pages in English regardless of 
the page content language.  See, e.g., <>.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus (OOo) []
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 17:20
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding

Am 11/03/2011 12:32 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Terry<>  wrote:
>> I gather that what you want to achieve is preservation of the 'name' 
>> '' as a trademark and as an identifier.  Eventually people 
>> will know that the Apache product is derived from the old 
>> software but the need to protect the old trademark will persist.
> It is one option.  I think it is worth discussing.  It might be a
> reasonable compromise that we can achieve consensus on, to use both
> names in some coherent way, like "Coca-Cola" and "Coke" are both
> trademarks for the same thing.

I'm pretty sure we can find a way to use both.

>> I am hesitant to say that the Apache product is the software formerly known 
>> as because LibreOffice can also make that claim.  I gather 
>> that LibreOffice folk regard the Apache product as another fork of 
>>  I'm not certain of the history but I understand that 
>> LibreOffice is the former go-oo but that was a fork of oo.o anyway.
> I would not hesitate to say that Apache is based on
> It is true statement.  If LO is offended by true statements than that
> is their problem, not ours.

Yes, the history is done and the well-known fact are certain. But we can
change the future and our way and behavior how to work together.

>> What about a statement along the lines " and Apache Open 
>> Office[/Office/Suite] are {registered ?} trademarks of the Apache Software 
>> Foundation which produces Apache Open Office {derived from oo.o} ?" 
>> Something like that could be used as a subtitle.
> That sounds like a legal notice.  I think we want to discuss first the
> branding strategy.  Once we agree on that the legal notice will follow
> trivially.
> In any case, the important question is how we would use both
> trademarks in our marketing efforts.  Merely saying the trademarks
> exist is not really using them.  If we're not really using
> as a trademark then eventually (3 years I think) it is
> considered abandoned.

I repeat my suggestion on this list:

Let's build a roof on "" for all Office suites that
are based on Then the trademark is used often enough to
keep the rights reserved.

- and -

Every peer should be happy as they can use this portal to give some
information, to be a part of the Office family and to link back to their
real project and product home.


>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Rob Weir<>
>>> To:
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 10:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Terry<>
>>> wrote:
>>>>   I agree that ownership of the '' brand should be
>>> preserved; allowing someone else to use it would create confusion.
>>> It is possible to have several trademarks in use at the same time.
>>> You see that in complex branding strategies for consumer products,
>>> where image is very important.  For example, the Coca Cola corporation
>>> protects "Coca Cola" (of course) but also "Coke" and several
>>> slogans like "Can't beat the real thing" and "I'd like to buy the
>>> world a Coke".  I assume the corporation has complex internal rules that
>>> determine how advertisers use use each name in the proper context.
>>> Would something like this make sense for OpenOffice?  Is there a way
>>> to rationalize the use of both names?  Or would that cause confusion
>>> among our own users?
>>> "Apache OpenOffice for your organization:"
>>> -Rob
>>>>>   <snip>
>>>>>   My one concern with this name is its effect on the existing
>>>>> trademark registration.  If we call ourselves
>>>>> "Apache OpenOffice" and never as "" what happens
>>>>> to the>>>    existing trademark?  Is it considered abandoned?
>>>>> anyone then use
>>>>> it?  Can  we prevent someone from causing confusion by adopting that

>>>>> name for a
>>>>>   similar product?
>>>>>   To put it in perspective, when Oracle announced that it was
>>>>>   contributing OOo to Apache, within a week a company attempted to
>>>>>   register the trademark "OpenOffice" in the US.  The value of our brand
>>>>>   is significant enough to attract scams.
>>>>>   Considering the past abuse that has been attempted against this brand,
>>>>>   and the likely future repetitions of the same, I think that it is
>>>>>   critical that we have some way to protect ourselves and our users
>>>>>   against confusing misuse of the names OpenOffice,, Open
>>>>>   Office, etc., in the usual variations.
>>>>>   For example,  would Apache actually register "Apache OpenOffice" as
>>>>>   US trademark?
>>>>>   So in summary, I like the shorter name "Apache OpenOffice" better than
>>>>>   "Apache".  But I just want to make sure we don't
>>>>>   lose the effective benefits and priority of the existing 
>>>>>   trademark registration.
>>>>>   -Rob

View raw message