[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Minutes - Action item (2.1) trademark registration

	I recommend that the appropriate time to register new dictionary
names as trademarks would be at the time when the dictionary gets its
first tentative approval from Comcifs.  Such a suggestion would exclude
imgCIF and CBF from the current list (though I understand they are almost
ready for submission - but there are other dictionaries in much the same
state).  However, I agree with Brian's list, and suggest that we register
further marks the dictionaries materialize.

			David


*****************************************************
Dr.I.David Brown,  Professor Emeritus
Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research, 
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Tel: 1-(905)-525-9140 ext 24710
Fax: 1-(905)-521-2773
idbrown@mcmaster.ca
*****************************************************

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Brian McMahon wrote:

> Dear Colleagues
> 
> The IUCr Executive Committee has already approved in principle the
> registration of suitable trademarks and service marks for CIF and other
> Union projects (at this time, specifically the Crystallography Journals
> Online service and the rebranding of the entire web hierarchy as
> Crystallography Online). If we agree a list of suitable CIF/STAR terms for
> registration, I shall press the Executive Secretary to begin the
> registration process. Given that registration incurs some costs, modest
> enough for a single trademark but obviously scaling in proportion to the
> number of marks claimed, I would suggest as an initial slate the collection
> of terms
>                   STAR File
>                   DDL
>                   CIF
>                   CBF
>                   mmCIF
>                   msCIF
>                   pdCIF
>                   imgCIF
> 
> David rightly pointed out in a message to this list of 27 July 1999 that
> DDL (and STAR File) are outwith the immediate jurisdiction of Comcifs;
> nevertheless, given the close relation with CIF and the fact that Syd is
> on this list, it's still an appropriate forum to discuss whether or not to
> request the IUCr to claim these as its own registered service marks.
> 
> David's suggestion that other projects under way, including symCIF, dsCIF,
> rhoCIF, sasCIF, magCIF and giCIF, might benefit from trademark registration
> are noted. While it makes sense to reserve any such name for IUCr use,
> the question arises at what stage should the Union be prepared to secure
> such a registration for each nascent project? And how much further should it
> go in reserving names for possible future use?
> 
> Discussion welcome.
> 
> Brian 
> 
> 


Reply to: [list | sender only]