newLISP on Wikipedia

[cormullion]

I think the Wikipedia entry on newLISP needs some technical input - looks out of date to me...



Also, someone has changed "newLISP" to "Newlisp" everywhere (except for the title, which has to be that way I think) and it could be changed back. I don't know why, but I don't like that spelling...

[Kazimir Majorinc]

newLISP is a registered trade mark. As such, it indicates that information comes from authoritative origin, and it is owner of the trade mark, and normally it is producer, i.e. Lutz Mueller.



The rest of us are not legally allowed to write newLISP. Lutz has to allow it explicitly, but it goes against basic purpose of trade mark. This or other way, even if we are allowed to use newLISP, item in Wikipedia or any "open" text that follows common writing rules shouldn't be written as a trade mark. Even if Lutz (who has the right to write newLISP) did it, editors should not allow it.

 

If other people write newLISP, and Lutz doesn't warn us against it, and he is too polite to do that, we harm him. His chance for retribution in the case of infringement are decreased, because he didn't "defended" his trade mark.



Lutz can decide to NAME (not trade mark) Newlisp to be newLISP - but it is questionable idea, first, it is not obvious that one can introduce his own spelling rules as a name (not trade mark) of the product in all countries, second, if that is done newLISP is not trade mark any more and Lutz has to invent new one.



It is like UNIX and Unix. Owner of the trade mark should write UNIX, the rest of us Unix.

[cormullion]

I don't think I agree. The Wikipedia itself sits on the fence:

When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.

Saying "Newlisp" is surely inventing a new style that's not used anywhere else? But referring to standard English is difficult with such compound words.



And why can you write 'OCaml' but not 'newLISP'? :)



I don't think 'being legally allowed to write' can be true (not that I know anything about it). Otherwise you wouldn't be able to say 'iPods' or 'McDonald's' or 'PlayStation' without fear of being sued...

[DrDave]

newLISP is a registered trade mark.

That is not correct. I am aware of no country that uses the mark "TM" to signify registered trademarks. The circle R mark is used in the US after granted by the USPTO.

The rest of us are not legally allowed to write newLISP. Lutz has to allow it explicitly, but it goes against basic purpose of trade mark. This or other way, even if we are allowed to use newLISP, item in Wikipedia or any "open" text that follows common writing rules shouldn't be written as a trade mark. Even if Lutz (who has the right to write newLISP) did it, editors should not allow it.

This is mostly correct for a REGISTERED mark. But because newLISP is NOT registered, there is a lot of legal gray area about others using the same mark. In any case, there is no legal requirement to ask the USER (note  I did not say OWNER) of the mark for permission to display the mark on other products or services. And similarly, an unregistered mark can be used by others in citations, etc., without appending "TM".

 

If other people write newLISP, and Lutz doesn't warn us against it, and he is too polite to do that, we harm him. His chance for retribution in the case of infringement are decreased, because he didn't "defended" his trade mark.

This only applies to registered marks. But in any case, the matter of due diligence is involved, and that can also be a tricky area, especially when various countries have different rulings for what constitutes due diligence.

Lutz can decide to NAME (not trade mark) Newlisp to be newLISP.

That is exaclty what using "TM" allows  

- but it is questionable idea, first, it is not obvious that one can introduce his own spelling rules as a name (not trade mark) of the product in all countries. second, if that is done newLISP is not trade mark any more and Lutz has to invent new one.

As you'll see below, there ARE variations allowed in trademarks that comprise only (specified) alphanumerics.

It is like UNIX and Unix. Owner of the trade mark should write UNIX, the rest of us Unix.

Assuming this is a US trade mark, it is wrong in two ways: upper/lower case is not important so both examples are the same in the eyes of the USPTO; it needs to be appended with the circle R symbol.



Actually, according to the mark "newLISP[size=59]TM[/size]", this is not a registered trademark, so legal issues regarding others using it are not so clear cut as a trademark registered with a body such as the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, which allows using the circle R symbol after they notifiy you that your mark has been officially allowed). By appending "[size=75]TM[/size]" to an unregistered mark, you make a public declaration that your product or service is to be recognized by that mark. That does not mean you "own" the mark. To "own" it, it must be registered with a recognized legal authority, and not all countries agree to be bound by the terms of other countries or by multi-national associations.



But even for a registered trademark, at least with the USPTO, that uses only alphnumeric characters, the size, font, weight, oreintation, etc. are NOT restricted to only the form in the trade mark application. ALthough not spelled out in the USPTO documentation , I suspect that the only requirement is that the characters be presented in the order given on the application. So "newLISP" and "newlisp" and "[size=150] new[/size]LISP" are all allowed variants, but things like "PSILwen" and other simialr variants of the order are not covered by that application.



And the issue of formating raised in the Wikipedia entry is blatantly wrong in US trade mark law. There are two classfications of marks: those of only (sanctioned) alphanumerics; and those of "graphical" marks, including size, shape, color, orientation, etc. And you pay more for the application for the latter type than the former type.

[Lutz]

newLISP is a registered trademark since May 8th, 2007. I simply didn't update the TM to an (R), which will happen for v.10.0. The application entered the USPTO in 12/2005. The TM was attached earlier.





ps: I think tm was added as early as 2002 to the name.

[DrDave]

newLISP is a registered trademark since May 8th, 2007. I simply didn't update the TM to an (R), which will happen for v.10.0. The TM was attached when the application entered the USPTO in 12/2005.

Congratulations! So now "newLISP(R)" has some legal footing to stand on. LOL



And just a note of clarification: TM can be appended to any mark, whether an application to register has been filed or not. TM is in no way at all connected with registration or intent to register (at least in the US); it merely is a public notification that a mark is being used by a specific company, and carries only a small amount of legal weight.

[Kazimir Majorinc]

So, where are we now?



For example, if I publish "Program for Newlisp" I could do it on my own. But if I want to publish "proGRAM for newLISP" I need Lutz's license for that. Is it right?

[DrDave]

Kazimir,



First, as a professional courtesy, not a requirement, you should append (R) to newLISP when you use it.



As I mentioned in  my earlier post, changing the case is still the registered trademark.



Really, the main worry is in others using a registered trademark to fool people into buying their product based on the consumer identifying the trademark on the product. For newLISP, the problem would be if another company started using Lutz' registered trademark on their own product without Lutz' permission. This might happen purely by accident because the other company did not do a trademark search and started using newLISP[size=75]TM[/size] (or other allowed variants like NEWlisp, NewLisp, etc.). Note that if the other company tried to register newLISP with the USPTO, it would be found to already be in use and not allowed. On the other hand, if the other company knows that newLISP is a terrifc and powerful progamming language that attracts many users and can generate a lot of money for him, then he can use newLISP on all of his advertising and materials about HIS great programming  language that he is also calling called newLISP. This is "stealing" Lutz' market, so Lutz can take legal action to force the competitor to stop using the trademark. On the other hand, maybe Lutz will offer the competitor the rights to use the trademark only on modules for newLISP that adhere to specific requirements set forth by Lutz. This is a case where both companies can benefit, as longas Lutz allows it.



The main purpose of a registered trademark is to distinguish your product or service from others. For example, if you were the trademark owner of Nike, you want people to see that "swoosh" trademark on shoes and other clothing and KNOW that you are buying a Nike product. If other companies make some cheap shoes and put that "swoosh" mark on them, then you THINK you are buying Nike brand, when really you are not. Nike then has the legal right to bring action against the other company to stop it from using Nike's registered trademark and tricking people into buying a non-Nike product. Simply becasue the consumer saw the "swoosh", he ASSUMED it was a Nike product. The other company is taking business away from Nike as well as possibly damaging Nike's reputation if the quality of the non-Nike product is poor.

[Kazimir Majorinc]

As I mentioned in  my earlier post, changing the case is still the registered trademark.

If I sell MicrosofT WindowS, I still break trademark. However, I checked Croatian law. The form, size and colour are elements of the trademark, and owner has an obligation to specify these. So, it can make a difference. Maybe it is different in other countries, but spirit of the law is probably same. If my intention is to use the name of the product (and I have right for "fair use") and minimize the chance for confusion, then its better not to use elements of trademark.



For example, Java trademark is of orange colour, Sun is blue italic. I have the right to write the book about Sun Java and I do not need permision for that, but my obligation is to take care not to mislead consumers that I'm Sun. If I consistently use colors and fonts that are elements of the trade mark through whole book, whenever I write Sun Java, I increase the chances for confusing consumers.



Right?

[xytroxon]

Here is an article on fair use of trademarks...



http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html">//http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html



Don't use the "newLISP" trademark as a noun or a verb, only as an adjective!!!



And here is an example of a trademark disclaimer I found on the title page of a book:



----

"PC Magazine: DOS Power Tools"

Paul Somerson

Copyright 1988



etc...



Throughout the book, trade names and trade marks of some companies names and productss have been used, and no such uses are intended to convey endorsemnet of or affiliations with the book.

----



I hope this helps? ;)



-- xytroxon

[DrDave]

As I mentioned in  my earlier post, changing the case is still the registered trademark.

If I sell MicrosofT WindowS, I still break trademark.

Yes, that is correct for US trademark law IF Microsoft has registered the text Miscrosoft Windows. However, if the mark they have registered includes that text along with some graphics, like their 4-colored windows banner, this falls into a graphics mark (see below), and legally you have not used their mark! However, don't expect to win a lawsuit over that technicality.

However, I checked Croatian law. The form, size and colour are elements of the trademark, and owner has an obligation to specify these. So, it can make a difference. Maybe it is different in other countries

 Yes, different countries follow different rules. There are also some international treaties that several countries have signed that define how they will treat trademarks from other countries that signed the treaty.

, but spirit of the law is probably same. If my intention is to use the name of the product (and I have right for "fair use") and minimize the chance for confusion, then its better not to use elements of trademark.

Yes, the court places a lot of weight on the intent of the company that has infringed a trademark. In the US, it is even possible for two companies to have marks that are only slightly different so that the consumer probably doesn't even realize they are different marks.  This can happen if the companies make TOTALLY different products in different fields, (company A makes shirts, company B makes donuts) and are located in different regions such that there would be no realistic chance of a consumer seeing the mark and thinking he is buying products from comapnay A when in reality they are from company B. This is because the consumer knows this mark on clothes only, and now that he is on vacation 1000 miles away and sees the mark on donuts and buys them because he likes the quality of the shirts from company A so expects the donuts will also be high quality, he is not in any way taking away sales from companyA's shirt business. However, this is also a tricky area, because now company A can say that company B is using the mark in a way that damages company A's reputation, because company B make terrible quality donuts. Or in another variation, company B is unfairly getting a lot of sales that they normally would not get simply because company A is well known enough throughout the US that  the consumer seeing that mark on donuts buys them with the thought that they are products of company A.  In this case, company A might decide that it is actually a good idea to be associated with both shirts and donuts, so they issue a license to company B to use the mark on donuts for some amount of the profits from the donut sales.

For example, Java trademark is of orange colour, Sun is blue italic. I have the right to write the book about Sun Java and I do not need permision for that, but my obligation is to take care not to mislead consumers that I'm Sun. If I consistently use colors and fonts that are elements of the trade mark through whole book, whenever I write Sun Java, I increase the chances for confusing consumers.



Right?

As I posted before, US trademarks fall into two categories]J[/color] is red, a is orange, v is green, a is blue, then the registered mark has to be in the graphics group and becomes ONLY those colors on those specific letters in that order using that font, case, etc.



So for newLISP, if Lutz has registerd only as an aplhanumeric, he can use all the variations in font, size, color, etc that he wants. However, if he decides he wants to have newLISP along with a dragonfly, then he must make another application to register this graphics form. And however he puts the text newLISP on the graphic becomes the ONLY way this graphics form can be presented: it must use the entire graphics that was submitted on the application. I don't recall now if he is allowed to have both trademarks for his company, but I think it is allowed. So then he can still present the text form alone in any allowed variation, but must present the graphics form ONLY as registered.

[cormullion]

But to cut to the chase - and to the original point - I see no reason why the Wikipedia article shouldn't say newLISP. If the article on the iPod says 'iPod', then the article on newLISP should say 'newLISP'. Irrespective of lawyers and litigious corporations. :)

[DrDave]

But to cut to the chase - and to the original point - I see no reason why the Wikipedia article shouldn't say newLISP.

No legal reason. I suspect it is due to simple ignorance.

[Kazimir Majorinc]

But to cut to the chase - and to the original point - I see no reason why the Wikipedia article shouldn't say newLISP.

No legal reason. I suspect it is due to simple ignorance.

I still disagree - I think there is good legal and moral reason for everyone except Lutz to use form of the word which doesn't contain elements of trade mark. No matter of way he registered it.

[xytroxon]

No... We also have to protect Lutz's rights, not doing so dimisnishes the trademark, makng it worthless... You are correct that you must not use the exact registered logo artwork (example: the McDonald's "golden arches" logo), to prevent persons from being fooled into thinking you are the trademark holder... Just be sure in your work that you state that you are not offically a part of newLISP®... And distinguish the newLISP® or newLISP(R) or newLISP or "newLISP" trademark from the rest of your writing style... Writing the trademark as newlisp is bad form...



Here are some guidelines from the "International Trademark Association":

http://www.inta.org/index.php?option=com_simplefaq&task=display&Itemid=0&catid=284&page=1&getcontent=5#FAQ71">Click Here for link.