Issue 121624

Summary:	Use OpenOffice.org ® for the link to the website to preserve that trademark
Product:	documentation	Reporter:	Andrea Pescetti <pescetti>
Component:	Readme	Assignee:	AOO issues mailing list <issues>
Status:	CLOSED OBSOLETE	QA Contact:
Severity:	Normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	issues, orw, toddnordby1
Version:	AOO 3.4.1
Target Milestone:	4.0.0
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Issue Type:	ENHANCEMENT	Latest Confirmation in:	---
Developer Difficulty:	---

Description Andrea Pescetti 2013-01-14 23:55:55 UTC

As pointed out by Dave Fisher on ooo-dev, we need to make sure that somewhere we use OpenOffice.org ® for the link to the website to preserve that trademark.

[ The (R) must be used only once, of course ; but this should be in the README or somewhere in the bundled documentation, probably ]

This issue should have target 4.0.

Comment 1 Andrea Pescetti 2013-01-14 23:56:48 UTC

Setting target 4.0 due to the legal implications and the minor impact.

Comment 2 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 2013-01-15 08:49:30 UTC

I am volunteering to to work on this task.

Comment 3 Rob Weir 2013-01-15 21:24:57 UTC

I believe that David is in error here.  Remember, a trademark is for a specific domain of use.    

I looked up the trademark for OpenOffice.org in the US Patent and Trademark Office database.  It is specifically defined as a trademark for the software.  It is not a trademark for a website or web service.  We should not be claiming a trademark, let alone a registered trademark, outside of the bounds of our registration.

So please do not move forward with this task until we get consensus on this on the dev list and/or on legal-discuss.

Consider this to be a -1 from me until this is confirmed.

Comment 4 Todd Nordby 2013-11-15 04:32:17 UTC

new

Comment 5 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 2014-04-30 11:24:53 UTC

I am no longer sure about this issue. Thus, reassigning this issue

Comment 6 Andrea Pescetti 2014-05-03 13:55:37 UTC

I'm now resolving as obsolete due to the fact that now we have better control and knowledge about our trademarks, but we haven't seen a need to do this in the actions we are currently taking to enforce our trademark. Please reopen if considered still worth discussing.