The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#21

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 8:07 PM UTC

gorenb wrote: post #8

Canada wrote: post #2

Can a trademark holder can really stop anyone from modifying the mark? For instance, can Monsanto have a court stop someone from drawing a mutant-looking or withered version of the plant in their logo? (eg. https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/monsanto_wither... ) I don't see what's so unreasonable about the other points.

Yes, a trademark holder can do that, but the problem is that Rust is supposed to be a foundation, a nonprofit. Even if they legally can, I don't think it's that ethical for a nonprofit to do so.

A nonprofit has as much incentive to aggressively defend branding as a for-profit industry. Deceptive, predatory, and for-profit trading on the branding of a non-profit is just as much of a problem for the non-profit and its mission as the same thing is for a for-profit business.

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#22

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 8:17 PM UTC

solomatov wrote: post #3

It’s very interesting how enforceable this trademark policy is. There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names. P.S. I am not a lawyer.

> There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names.

I’m not familiar with any form of trademark fair use that would extend to use of the mark in a product name that is in any way within the scope where (fair use aside) trademark would be an issue. Nominative fair use of trademark would extend to using the trademark in product descriptions to describe specifically the thing that the mark refers to; it lets you say things like that your product is for use with Microsoft Windows. But it won’t let you use “Microsoft Windows” as part of your product name.

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#23

Post by solomatov » Sun, Sep 03, 2023, 3:34 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #22

solomatov wrote: post #3

It’s very interesting how enforceable this trademark policy is. There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names. P.S. I am not a lawyer.

> There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names. I’m not familiar with any form of trademark fair use that would extend to use of the mark in a product name that is in any way within the scope where (fair use aside) trademark would be an issue. Nominative fair use of trademark would extend to using the trademark in prod…

There's a case law which contradicts what you say:

- https://casetext.com/case/toyota-motor-sales-v-tabari (about using buy-a-lexus.com and buyorleaselexus.com domains without permission from Toyota)

- https://www.leagle.com/decision/1969761411f2d3501697 (about using Independent Volkswagen Porsche Service without permission from Volkswagen and Porsche)

P.S. May be I am misunderstanding something because I am not a lawyer, but these cases looks pretty straightforward to me.