Re: Advice on Trademark Issues requested

[Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>]

Hi Rainer,

These documents are the current state of thought in the IETF on IPR,
trademarks, etc.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12.txt

I don't think that we're violating any trademarks by assigning a common
name to a defined field in a protocol.  However, I'll send a note around
(off list) to make sure.  I'll provide a summary back to the list.

Thanks,
Chris

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rainer Gerhards wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> I thought that "structured data element" is a bit lengthy and was tempted to replace it by the abbreviation "SDE" in the protcol-02 darft. However, I found that this is a trademark. Than, I did some trademark searchon TAG, and voilá, it too is trademarked. I didn't bother to dig for the other abbreviations, but I think some of them will be the same as existing trademarks.
>
> I would appreciate advise from someone with experience on this issue. Is it really an issue? Can I use "SDE" or need I to stick with the longer form?
>
> Any help is deeply appreciated,
> Rainer
>
>
>
>