incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
Date Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:59:19 GMT
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Marcus (OOo) <> wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that would be considered a use of the trademark.  Why?
Because we do not own a trademark for a website.  The trademark is
specifically registered for:

"Computer software for use in database management, for use as a
spreadsheet, for word processing, that may be downloaded from a global
computer network; computer programs, namely, presentation graphics
programs, that may be downloaded from a global computer network;
software for processing images, graphics and text, that may be
downloaded from a global computer network; software for typesetting of
equations and formulae, that may be downloaded from a global computer
network. "

So the registered trademark is for the software, not for the website.

> - 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<>
>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>  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 a
>>>>>>  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