Following up to my note from yesterday. ZEA *is* the official registrant (but not legitimate owner) of the Cirlce-Z-Zope (CZZ) mark in many countries in the Madrid Protocol. You can search the WIPO database for "Zope" and find it. Zope Corporation is the official registrant of the word Zope in many countries in the Madrid Protocol and our registration predates the ZEAs. Since the ZEA registration is based on the word Zope we believe that an official trademark opposition will be successful. We are also only willing to pay the fees that Zope Corporation would otherwise have had to pay to register the marks itself. This offer was made in writing last Friday. The subtle but important point is that ZEA seems to be willing to transfer the marks to the Zope Foundation not Zope Corporation. This seems to be the essence of the difference in our position. If this is inaccurate -- i.e., ZEA is willing to transfer the marks to ZC with no strings attached then we can chalk this up to some incredible communication issue and can certainly move forward! It seems that the prospect of Zope Corporation's unfair (and unprecedented) management of the marks is the real issue. So that our position and policy are clear: *** We will not use (nor allow our successors or assigns) to use the Zope trademarks in non-competitive ways. *** The challenge is to figure out how to get this in place. One idea might be to make the BoD of the Zope Foundation the arbiter of any revocation action ZC might take. This would be a contractual relationship between ZC (and its successors and assigns) and the ZF. If ZC felt that a given ZC-licensed use of the marks had become inappropriate we would move to revoke the trademark license. If the license holder was unsatisfied with the revocation they would appeal to the Zope Foundation which, on vote of a supermajority of the BoD could overrule ZC's revocation action. It is our heartfelt sense that Zope Corporation is more likely to defend (within guidelines and process) the marks than a volunteer-led Foundation. We have heard comments that suggest that the Foundation should not be in the business of enforcement. Enforcement is an active responsibility. Perhaps once (and while) ZF has full-time staff to pursue Foundation business (including TM matters) the Foundation would be the first stop for tm issues. It has been reported that ZEA's original registration of the marks was defensive and done in an effort to preclude registrations from being made by unfriendly parties. We find it simply surprising that the first mention of their registrations to us was 18 months (!) after the fact. ZEA does not represent the entire Zope community in Europe (nor do they claim to) and certainly don't represent the global Zope community. In fact, we should all recognize that the ZEA competes with non-ZEA companies on proposals. That's fine, expected and natural. However, any action on ZEA's part that was made on "behalf of the community" is inappropriate. ZC does not claim to represent the whole Zope Community either. We are asserting our ownership (and, we think) aggressive desire to manage the marks and brand in a vendor-neutral way. With respect to ZEA's ownership of the Plone trademark - I am told by two people that ZEA helped register the Plone mark as a service to the Plone Foundation and that it has been or is in the process of being transferred. Presuming this is true I stand corrected. Even this morning the WIPO database advertises ZEA as the registrant of record for the mark. Regards, Rob -- Rob Page V: 540 361 1710 Zope Corporation F: 703 995 0412