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

Re: Minutes - Action item (2.1) trademark registration

My suggestion would be that we start with the simplest and least expensive
solution:  marking the symbols we care about with a trademark symbol (TM)
or an appropriate footnote (e.g. "CIF is a trademark of the International
Union of Crystallography").  We should check with a lawyer, but I
believe this step does not require a registration fee or any formal legal
action (at least not in the US), and would at least get us started staking
out the names we care about.


-- Herbert


=====================================================
****                BERNSTEIN + SONS
*   *       INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
****     P.O. BOX 177, BELLPORT, NY 11713-0177
*   * ***
**** *            Herbert J. Bernstein
  *   ***     yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com
 ***     *
  *   *** 1-631-286-1339    FAX: 1-631-286-1999
=====================================================
=====================================================
     Herbert J. Bernstein, Associate Professor
   Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
                St. Joseph's College
         155 West Roe Boulevard, Room E106A
              Patchogue, NY 11772, USA

Phone:  SJC: +1-631-447-3397  Home: +1-631-286-1339
Fax:    SJC: +1-631-654-1782  Home: +1-631-286-1999
email:  yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com
=====================================================



On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, I. David Brown wrote:

> 	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]