[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Minutes - Action item (2.1) trademark registration
- To: Multiple recipients of list <comcifs-l@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: Minutes - Action item (2.1) trademark registration
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:50:04 GMT
My suggestion would be that we start with the simplest and least expensive solution: marking the symbols we care about with a trademark symbol (TM) or an appropriate footnote (e.g. "CIF is a trademark of the International Union of Crystallography"). We should check with a lawyer, but I believe this step does not require a registration fee or any formal legal action (at least not in the US), and would at least get us started staking out the names we care about. -- Herbert ===================================================== **** BERNSTEIN + SONS * * INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS **** P.O. BOX 177, BELLPORT, NY 11713-0177 * * *** **** * Herbert J. Bernstein * *** yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com *** * * *** 1-631-286-1339 FAX: 1-631-286-1999 ===================================================== ===================================================== Herbert J. Bernstein, Associate Professor Department of Mathematics and Computer Science St. Joseph's College 155 West Roe Boulevard, Room E106A Patchogue, NY 11772, USA Phone: SJC: +1-631-447-3397 Home: +1-631-286-1339 Fax: SJC: +1-631-654-1782 Home: +1-631-286-1999 email: yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com ===================================================== On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, I. David Brown wrote: > I recommend that the appropriate time to register new dictionary > names as trademarks would be at the time when the dictionary gets its > first tentative approval from Comcifs. Such a suggestion would exclude > imgCIF and CBF from the current list (though I understand they are almost > ready for submission - but there are other dictionaries in much the same > state). However, I agree with Brian's list, and suggest that we register > further marks the dictionaries materialize. > > David > > > ***************************************************** > Dr.I.David Brown, Professor Emeritus > Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research, > McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada > Tel: 1-(905)-525-9140 ext 24710 > Fax: 1-(905)-521-2773 > idbrown@mcmaster.ca > ***************************************************** > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Brian McMahon wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues > > > > The IUCr Executive Committee has already approved in principle the > > registration of suitable trademarks and service marks for CIF and other > > Union projects (at this time, specifically the Crystallography Journals > > Online service and the rebranding of the entire web hierarchy as > > Crystallography Online). If we agree a list of suitable CIF/STAR terms for > > registration, I shall press the Executive Secretary to begin the > > registration process. Given that registration incurs some costs, modest > > enough for a single trademark but obviously scaling in proportion to the > > number of marks claimed, I would suggest as an initial slate the collection > > of terms > > STAR File > > DDL > > CIF > > CBF > > mmCIF > > msCIF > > pdCIF > > imgCIF > > > > David rightly pointed out in a message to this list of 27 July 1999 that > > DDL (and STAR File) are outwith the immediate jurisdiction of Comcifs; > > nevertheless, given the close relation with CIF and the fact that Syd is > > on this list, it's still an appropriate forum to discuss whether or not to > > request the IUCr to claim these as its own registered service marks. > > > > David's suggestion that other projects under way, including symCIF, dsCIF, > > rhoCIF, sasCIF, magCIF and giCIF, might benefit from trademark registration > > are noted. While it makes sense to reserve any such name for IUCr use, > > the question arises at what stage should the Union be prepared to secure > > such a registration for each nascent project? And how much further should it > > go in reserving names for possible future use? > > > > Discussion welcome. > > > > Brian > > > > > >
- Prev by Date: Re: Trade and Service Marks
- Next by Date: Re: Minutes - Action item (2.1) trademark registration
- Prev by thread: Re: Minutes - Action item (2.1) trademark registration
- Next by thread: Re: Minutes - Action item (2.1) trademark registration
- Index(es):