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 Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:59:45 GMT
Are you saying that the site http://ooo-site.apache.org/ is a prototype of the intended public
site?


There is already an explanation of the project's status at the foot of that page.  Are you
saying we should canvas different ways of expressing what is there now?

I understand that trademarks is a specialised subject.  We could still look at what is available
and express views about the merits of the various logos, symbols and icons.  There are a
number of pages in the old Wiki and in the old marketing and art projects.  http://www.odfauthors.org/
also has a section on art.


I'm struggling to reconcile the 'umbrella' concept with use of the name 'Apache Open Office'
as the product brand.  I think that name would create confusion and be an obstacle to collaboration
under the openoffice.org banner.

Terry



----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>
> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2011 12:53 PM
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
> 
> 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:// *.openoffice.org 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 <http://ooo-site.apache.org> (not the intended 
> public URL - this is a place for reviewing of migrated content before the actual 
> cut-over of http:// *.openoffice.org 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 OpenOffice.org 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 OpenOffice.org 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., <http://es.openoffice.org/>.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.mail@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 17:20
> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> 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<terauck-aoomark@yahoo.com.au>  
> wrote:
>>>  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.
>>> 
>> 
>>  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 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.
>>> 
>> 
>>  I would not hesitate to say that Apache is based on OpenOffice.org.
>>  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 "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.
>>> 
>> 
>>  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
>>  OpenOffice.org 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 "www.openoffice.org" for all Office suites 
> that
> are based on OpenOffice.org. 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.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>  ----- 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