<div>2009/10/10 Martin Dengler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin@martindengler.com">martin@martindengler.com</a>></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
b) what feedback from the SoaS / Sugar Labs community was sought<br>
before Solution Grove registered a domain name that was the exact same<br>
as a distribution the creation of which was substantially not done by<br>
Solution Grove (I was not involved at this point).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>I'm new to the list, but to me <a href="http://sugaronastick.com">http://sugaronastick.com</a> is a very interesting case. I didn't realise this site <i>wasn't</i> endorsed by Sugar Labs, given that there is so much Sugar Labs branding on the site. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Solution Grove is using Sugar Labs' registered trademark prominently on the front: the pictures of the USB sticks, the scrolling photos and very prominently at the bottom. Without consent, it's very likely that this is trade mark infringement. Therefore, I can only assume that there was very explicit consent granted.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I understand that the test for trademark infringement is likely consumer confusion. <a href="http://sugaronastick.com">http://sugaronastick.com</a> is using typefaces, colour schemes that seem to be designed to show that Solution Grove is associated with Sugar Labs. I personally was confused, especially as the site is using Sugar Lab's registered intellectual property.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There's another discussion though: is "Sugar on a Stick" a trade mark?</div><div><br></div><div>While (as far as I know) Sugar Labs has only registered "Sugar Labs", my impression is that "Sugar on a Stick" is being used as an unregistered trademark by Sugar Labs and the wider community. To me the term Sugar on a Stick only means designates thing, which is Sugar run via a USB device (or possibly emulation or virtualisation). On the flip side, it is partially descriptive, so there's an argument that Sugar on a Stick can't function as a trade mark.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Still, on the face of it, I think there's a strong chance that a court would find that Sugar on a Stick is a trade mark. Therefore, just for the avoidance of doubt, I would have assumed that there would have been explicit consent granted.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Could someone fill me in the details of what actually happened?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div></div></div>