[IAEP] [SLOBS] [SLOBs] prep for Friday's meeting
mel at melchua.com
Fri Jan 22 00:20:14 EST 2010
On 01/21/2010 04:30 AM, Sean DALY wrote:
> Per the last SLOBs meeting, and this mail
> cc'd to the SLOBs, I had reflected for some time on this and come to
> the conclusion that it can't be done the way we want to do it without
> approval - abuse will be too simple.
> Aside from Walter, none of the SLOBs cc'd on that mail responded, I
> ask the other SLOBs to please try to understand my position so we can
> wrap this up. i will have new text to propose as well.
Thanks for writing that email, Sean - I did read it, and learned a lot
from it (thanks in particular for putting in links to
examples/references!) but was quiet because didn't have anything to add
to the conversation at the time, beyond "wow, thanks for writing this!"
Trying to pull discussion questions from the email here, let me know if
I'm misreading something - all these questions center around the aim to
promote and grow the SL brand, which means both protecting the brand and
making it so that others can and will spread it.
* What conditions must the licensee respect in order to be allowed to
use a SL mark? (Broad question covered by other points in our trademark
discussion for tomorrow, I believe - this is basically the entire question.)
* There is an assumption (or proposal) in the email that trademark usage
of all SL marks will be free. Is this something we agree on, and should
* When would licensing not be routine, i.e. require consideration before
* What formulation(s) of the SL marks should we provide as options? This
is the label text - our "circled intel inside sticker", if you will.
* What could motivate us to revoke a license?
* What graphical specifications on mark usage do we want to set forth?
(must have this much whitespace, must use these colors, must not be
(Am I missing anything?)
More information about the IAEP