[Zope] More TM ideas

[Rob Page]

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