Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defending Our Brand

letsencrypt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 275 posts

Re: Defending Our Brand

#101

Post by greenspot »

icebraining wrote: post #91
greenspot wrote: post #71

Out of curiosity: Why didn't Letsencrypt applied for a trademark right at the start? That this happens was quite foreseeable and occurs quite often if people forget to secure trademarks (I know this won't be a popular opinion because most as I like Letsencrypt and their outstanding service)

It's a fair question, though you don't actually need to register your trademark to "own" it, it just provides some advantages and of course reduces the danger that someone will do what Comodo did.

If Comodo would have actively used "Letsencrypt" as a brand paired with Comodo's registration this case would be crystal clear: Letsencrypt wouldn't own anything.

With the situation now, it's debatable but saying that a trademark 'just provides some advantages' is a bit of an understatement.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#102

Post by vec »

nik736 wrote: post #33
distances wrote: post #15

Earlier 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 ;-)

Let's Encrypt doesn't offer EV certs. Which is reasonable; EV certs can't be automated (and they're a dumb idea anyway), but they're still necessary for some of my sites.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#103

Post by combatentropy »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #75
natch wrote: post #58

I'm pretty sure the lawyer would have known about letsencrypt.org and their Let's Encrypt project before filing this. So 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 th…

You would have to prove the lawyer knew. It sounds difficult to prove short of an email exchange and I have no idea how the courts work but hopefully you can't get access to a company's emails just by filing a suit based on "I'm pretty sure"

If not perjury, then negligence. I ran into Let's Encrypt without looking for it. It kept popping up in the tech news section over the past year.

Maybe lawyers don't peruse the tech news, not even tech lawyers. Well, the lawyer's client most likely does. And really, the lawyer is just filing the request on the client's behalf.

Besides it doesn't matter. A simple web search would have turned up Let's Encrypt. Not doing a simple web search before filing a trademark request is negligence.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#105

Post by markonen »

CloudFlare uses Comodo certificates–millions of them, I imagine–and that probably makes them a commercially significant Comodo customer. As a CloudFlare customer with a Comodo-issued certificate, I hope they’ll try to convince Comodo of the value of doing the right thing.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#106

Post by talideon »

mhw wrote: post #82
natch wrote: post #58

I'm pretty sure the lawyer would have known about letsencrypt.org and their Let's Encrypt project before filing this. So 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 th…

I'm also puzzled that Let's Encrypt's Trademark policy [1] strongly suggests that 'Let's Encrypt' is a trademark (word mark?) that they have registered, and yet according to the most recent letter sent by the USPTO [2] "The Office records have been searched and there are no similar registered or pending marks that would bar registration [...]" [1] https://letsencrypt.org/trademarks/ [2] http://tsdr.uspto.gov/document…

You don't have to register trademarks, even though it's a good idea to do so, if only for the sake of clarity. Trademarks can be established through market use (common law usage), which is what Let's Encrypt's claim is based on.

Let's Encrypt will likely defend their claim, if it comes to it, through the tort of passing off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

Edit: I can English good.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#107

Post by zeveb »

Fej wrote: post #4

The bullshit the CAs pull never ceases to amaze me.

The entire CA model is fundamentally broken: I rely on an entity I have no relationship to vouch for entities it has a relationship with. That makes no sense. The way it should work is that I rely on an entity I do have a relationship with to vouch for entities.

Could be public, could be private (I'd prefer private, since that would make resiliency, competition & experimentation more likely).

Re: Defending Our Brand

#108

Post by fourthark »

jordigh wrote: post #69
sokoloff wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to disagree (on the latter point). Encrypt is a generic word here. I don't think it's appropriate (nor consistent with the law) to grant broad trademark protection for generic terms. To me, it's closer to "Joe's Pizza," "Anna's Pizza", and "Arlington Pizza" all selling, well pizza. Could someone confuse Arlington Pizza and Anna's Pizza? Sure, especially if Anna's Pizza is in Arlington and the owner of Arlingto…

"Encrypt" on its own is generic but the " Encrypt" form of it doesn't sound generic enough to me. Trademarks don't have to be original to be trademarkable, just not cause confusion. I can see people getting confused by "start encrypt" vs "let's encrypt". There could be a case for trademark confusion there. > Nevertheless, you can't trademark " Pizza" Yep, you totally can. Again, because originality has got nothing to…

"Let's encrypt" is more subjunctive than imperative, although the distinction is vague in English. "Start Encrypt" is just bad grammar AFAICT.
Post reply on HN