Subject: RE: SenderID name in use by somebody else

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:17:34 -0700 (PDT)

[I'm forwarding something that I originally answered in private, but I 
 believe the answers (both to me & Andrew, and my reply) are of interest
 to MARID WG and IETF in general]

> Andrew,
> 
> Microsoft completed a trademark search and found that no issues.  I
> should note since we have gone public with using the name on June 1,
> others have attempted to submit trademark applications, which will be
> rejected due to prior usage.  If the question is can it be "trademarked"
> the answer is no.
> 
> If the question if the name can be used without infringing on another
> trademark, the answer is yes.
> 
> PS - The proper use of the name is with a space between Sender & ID, not
> as a single word.
> 
> Hope this helps.

Ok. That helps and explains why problem was not found, but I'll note that
both on this list and in press and in many other places the name used
was simply "SenderID", in other places such as latest version of protocol
document it is "Sender-ID".

There is clearly some confusion in the name even among the people who are 
developing the technology and I believe confusion will continue and as
such the presense of "SenderID(tm)" from senderid.org with technology
description so similar to ordinary person to Sender ID of MARID may
lead people to wrong place which means problem adaption.

Additionally I'll note that Microsoft in the past has filed legal actions 
against people and organizations that have used names that sound similar
to its patented marks, for example just recently there was well publicised
case of Microsoft vs Mike Rowe in regards to mikerowesoft.com

Without taking a position on if Microsoft actions against Mike Row were
appropriate or well supported by current laws, I'll note that presense
of such disputes means that there are those that believe that trademark 
is more then just spelling, and as such if we continue with using "Sender 
ID", this might put IETF and ISOC in the position of being responsible 
for trademark infringement and might cause legal actions, which, no matter 
if IETF wins or not, is not a pleasent situation and something that we 
should try to avoid by minimizing possibility of name and trademark 
disputes in regards to terms used by IETF.

I believe it would be appropriate for WG chairs to take this matter further
with IESG or IAB (I think this is already being done) to decide the course
of actions further in regards to IETF continuning use of the "Sender ID"
name in its documents.

---
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
 mailto: [email-masked]
Anti-Spam Research Worksite:
 http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg/