Defending Our Brand
51–60 of 275 posts
Re: Defending Our Brand
#52Re: Defending Our Brand
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my first idea too. I'm surprised LE didn't target them too.
For using the word 'Encrypt', or something else?
StartSSL even changed their CI colours from "green, with red highlights" to "exactly the same shade of blue Let's Encrypt has, with green highlights", I mean come on.
Re: Defending Our Brand
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I have an existing cert from Comodo for my personal site, as they were cheap and easy to get when I was looking for one. I will look for another provider when it's time to renew.
Why are you looking for another provider? Just use Lets Encrypt ;-)
Re: Defending Our Brand
#55[x] First they ignore you, [x] then they laugh at you, [x] then they fight you, [ ] then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
[ ] then you ignore them
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246Re: Defending Our Brand
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the naming might be similar, they are actually providing a free ssl cert, right? similar to LE. If that is the case, then its a good thing (IMHO)
They always provided free "personal" certifcates with a validity of one year. But they market the "Start Encrypt" thing like you now get wildcard and EV certificates for free (which isn't true). Talking about scummy practices...
Re: Defending Our Brand
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you looking for another provider? Just use Lets Encrypt ;-)
Lets encrypt certs are only valid for 3 months. In many situations the auto-renewal stuff is inconvenient. Then its easier to just buy a commercial cert that's valid for a few years.
Re: Defending Our Brand
#58So that being said, reading the fine print of what the lawyer had to sign in order to submit the application, shouldn't the lawyer be vulnerable to perjury charges?
Excerpt from http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86790719&docId... :
The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing the application under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered; the applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; the specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and/or if the applicant filed an application under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), § 1126(d), and/or § 1126(e), the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce; the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application. The signatory believes that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive. The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Re: Defending Our Brand
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see "Start Encrypt" as a capitalist answer to a competing product with (very) cheesy marketing, while what Comodo tries to do is purely malicious. IMHO we can't put them in the same basket.
It sounds similar enough to me "Let's Encrypt" that it could confuse people. The trademark system is supposed to prevent confusion, which seems to me like what "Start Encrypt" could do. Thus, that also seems to me like a trademark problem.
Re: Defending Our Brand
#60[x] First they ignore you, [x] then they laugh at you, [x] then they fight you, [ ] then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi