incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry <terauck-aoom...@yahoo.com.au>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:14:40 GMT
I gather that what you want to achieve is preservation of the 'name' 'OpenOffice.org' as a
trademark and as an identifier.  Eventually people will know that the Apache product is derived
from the old openoffice.org software but the need to protect the old trademark will persist.


I am hesitant to say that the Apache product is the software formerly known as openoffice.org
because LibreOffice can also make that claim.  I gather that LibreOffice folk regard the
Apache product as another fork of OpenOffice.org.  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.


What about a statement along the lines "openoffice.org 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.

Terry



----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 10:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
> 
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Terry <terauck-aoomark@yahoo.com.au> 
> wrote:
>>  I agree that ownership of the 'OpenOffice.org' 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:  OpenOffice.org"
> 
> -Rob
> 

>>>  <snip>
>>> 
>>>  My one concern with this name is its effect on the existing
>>>  OpenOffice.org trademark registration.  If we call ourselves 
>>> "Apache OpenOffice" and never as "OpenOffice.org" what happens 
>>> to the >>>  existing trademark?  Is it considered abandoned?  Can
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, OpenOffice.org, Open
>>>  Office, etc., in the usual variations.
>>> 
>>>  For example,  would Apache actually register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
>>>  US trademark?
>>> 
>>>  So in summary, I like the shorter name "Apache OpenOffice" better than
>>>  "Apache OpenOffice.org".  But I just want to make sure we don't
>>>  lose the effective benefits and priority of the existing OpenOffice.org
>>>  trademark registration.
>>> 
>>>  -Rob
>>> 
>

Mime
View raw message