On Apr 4, 2014, at 6:08 PM, cdel.firsthand.net <cdel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was about to ask under what classes IETF registrations are held? IETF is in Class 42. The IETF Logo is in the following classes: 9, 35, 42 “IETF Secretariat” is in: 35, 42. Ray > > > 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 >>