I was about to ask under what classes IETF registrations are held? Christian de Larrinaga > On 4 Apr 2014, at 22:57, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> 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 >