Wikipedia files a WIPO

[draggar]

...and wins...

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0139.html

I find this rather interesting. Does this mean they can go on after other "wiki" sites (yes, this one had Wikipedia in it but....).

I find this quite interesting that a site based on the development and providing the availability of free information to prevent others from doing the same.

Is it just me or is this just a tad bit hypocritical?

 

[tetrapak]

Wow, I remember the claims in sales threads of wiki domains that "Wikipedia does not go for the wiki domains".. Actually they do.

Draggar, they are not preventing anyone to provide free information, they want to prevent to use their brand for this purpose.

 

[Theo]

Wikipedia provides a platform under the GNU license, it does not provide free use of its trademarked name. While "wiki" this and "wiki" that is used to identify the platform & software, the license does not permit use of the "wikipedia" name and trademark.

 

[draggar]

Good points - so the question is, does this open it up to the countless "wiki" sites out there?

 

[kwok]

Wikipedia provides a platform under the GNU license, it does not provide free use of its trademarked name. While "wiki" this and "wiki" that is used to identify the platform & software, the license does not permit use of the "wikipedia" name and trademark.

:yes: completely agree.

 

[Theo]

Good points - so the question is, does this open it up to the countless "wiki" sites out there?

As long as they a) violate the terms of the license and b) infringe on the "wikipedia" trademark.

 

[Marketing Guru]

The site in question, VisualWikepedia.com, has now changed its name to VisWiki.com. What happens next will be telling. Will Wikipedia claim that the term Wiki creates enough confusion with their mark to protect it, or will they just protect their actual registered trademark 'Wikipedia'.

-MG

 

[Theo]

It's irrelevant, did you read the WIPO decision? The defendant changed the name before the UDRP.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Will Wikipedia claim that the term Wiki creates enough confusion with their mark to protect it

Uh, no. "Wiki" is the type of site Wikipedia is. They did not coin that term. It's derived from a Hawaiian word meaning "quick and simple" or something to that effect.

Coca-Cola is one of the world's most valuable marks. Both "coca" and "cola" are generic words referring to ingredients of Coca-Cola. However, Coca-Cola together means only one thing.

 

[exponent]

Uh, no. "Wiki" is the type of site Wikipedia is. They did not coin that term. It's derived from a Hawaiian word meaning "quick and simple" or something to that effect.

Coca-Cola is one of the world's most valuable marks. Both "coca" and "cola" are generic words referring to ingredients of Coca-Cola. However, Coca-Cola together means only one thing.

Once again, Dr. Berryhill delivers a flawless explanation. Hats off to you, John. You're the best. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Gerry]

Brilliant!