On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:45 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Friday, April 04, 2014 14:19 -0400 Ray Pelletier > <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> It sounds as if this will open the door to my being able to >>> advertise myself as the IETF Secretariat. Or even the ITU's >>> being able to. Yes? >> >> You could certainly use "Secretariat" but you cannot use >> "IETF Secretariat" without violating the "IETF" >> trademark. > > Ray, I assume that if Dave (or someone else) set themselves up > as the International Elegant Tophat Fabrication Society, made at > least a perfunctory effect to establish themselves as being in > that business, established a business unit that they called > their "Secretariat", and then advertised the result as the "IETF > Secretariat", things could get dicey. Given the different line > of business, they might even be able to take out a trademark on > "IETF Secretariat". Right? The "risk" applies to IETF in addition to IETF Secretariat. We don't own IETF in every class of goods and services. IETF bananas, top hats and car tires can be sold and that won’t violate our IETF trademark People aren’t going to be confused between the two, just like they aren’t for Apple computers and Apple records. Ray > > Now, whether having a trademark registered as "IETF Secretariat" > with whatever line of business the IETF and IETF Secretariat > claim to be in would offer significant protection against that > attack is far outside my knowledge or experience. > > I have enough trouble imagining someone going to the trouble to > attempt the above as an attack that I think it would probably be > foolish to worry about it, but it is, in principle, the > difference between "no risk" and "no risk worth worrying about". > > john > > > >