Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Sigmascape1 AT cs.com]

>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:28:22 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
>Subject: Re: General Questions about Licensing
>To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
>    <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>Cc: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <16601.206.67.17.2.1082654902.squirrel AT webmail5.pair.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>If you trademark something and don't defend it,
>I don't think the best way to describe it is to
>say it falls into Public Domain so that anyone
>can use it and no one can Trademark it ever.
>
>for one, trademark and copyright are two different
>things. Trademarks are handled by the patent office,
>not the copyright office.
>
>For another, if it >does< fall into a state
>similar to Public Domain, then keep in mind
>that authors can use Public Domain works to
>write new works that are "All Rights Reserved".
>I'm not sure if there is a similar possibility
>in Trademark law.
>
>I don't think you can Trademark "devilboy"
>and then allow it to lapse into public domain
>such that no one can ever use devilboy as a
>trademark ever again.
>
>At most, a trademark can apply to a specific
>product, and you can prevent anyone from using
>that trademark to identify their similar product.
>
>Kleenex (tm) tissue paper
>
>The Kleenex trademark applies only to tissue paper.
>
>There has been some stuff happening around the
>"Apple" (tm) Music Company   and
>"Apple" (tm) Computer Company
>
>If I recall correctly, Apple music existed first,
>and when Apple Computer came out, there was a suit,
>and the result was Apple Computer could have its
>own trademark as long as the company didn't sell
>music.  Then it came up again recently when Itunes
>became available.
>
>The short of it is Trademark requires legal work,
>whereas Copyright is automatic for the most
>passive Author.
>
>I'd recommend finding a Trademark lawyer,
>telling him what you want to accomplish,
>and follow his advice.
>
>Sigmascape1 AT cs.com said:
>>>
>>>Message: 3
>>>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:29:42 -0400 (EDT)
>>>From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
>>>Subject: Re: General Questions about Licensing
>>>To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
>>>    <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>Message-ID: <22315.206.67.17.2.1082575782.squirrel AT webmail5.pair.com>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>>>
>>>Howdy!
>>>
>>>Trademark has to be defended by the owner or
>>>it can become public domain. If you try to
>>>trademark "Kleenex (tm) tissue paper", and
>>>then everyone starts calling all tissue paper
>>>a Kleenex, then you, as trademark holder,
>>>have to show effort in keeping "Kleenex" a
>>>trademark, an adjective, or else it can fall
>>>into a normal common noun in english use,
>>>which is public domain, and not your exclusive
>>>property anymore.
>>>
>> ---- To clarify, if I had an actual, fully legal trademark and did not 
>> defend
>> it, at some point it would become public domain? If this is true, then it
>> solves a great number of potential issues for me. My fear was to establish 
>> a
>> TM, formally, legally, and then if I allowed others to share my work, the
>> trademark could somehow be taken away by a 3rd party person or company and
>> then have them claim ownership of it. So, if I am understanding this
>> correctly, a true legal trademark is either owned by a company or person, 
>> or,
>> if not defended, it falls into the public domain? As along as it can't be
>> taken away used exclusively by another entity, that clears a lot issues.
>>
>> Thank you!!!
>>
>> MLF

Thank you for your help. If nothing else, it is a very interesting set of 
ideas. 

I appreciate your time!

MLF