[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Logo -- dog, tag (with element), but no hat?



On 24/08/05, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>
> The name "Fedora(TM)" itself is already a big-ass problem for Red Hat
> Legal if that happens!  Because Shadow Man wears a Red Fedora!

No, that are two entirely different things. Same in the following:
 
> I mean, at what point can't another vendor call their distro "Gangster"
> and put on a Gangster Fedora hat in the illustration?  

You're mixing trademarked names and trademarked logos/symbols, and
that leads to nothing.  It would make no sense for Red Hat to create a
confusing similarity between the "Red Hat" product line and the
"Fedora" product line by mixing red hats with blue fedoras or red
fedoras with blue hats or something like that, and using less
restrictive trademark usage permissions for the Fedora stuff than for
the Red Hat stuff. And I said confusing (!) similarity, not just
similarity. It can be beneficial for both Red Hat and Fedora that it
is widely known that Red Hat is a driving force behind the Fedora
Project, too. But it would not do Red Hat Enterprise Linux any good if
its fundamental differences compared with Fedora got buried in
confusing usage of words, names, trademarks, mascots, and neither the
red hat nor Shadow Man would be unique anymore. Of course, another
vendor can call a distribution "Gangster", if that is desired. But as
soon as they start using and advertising a logo which bears any close
resemblance with Red Hat's "Shadow Man"(TM), in particular the red hat
(!) he wears, they've got a problem, even if they choose a different
colour.  Also note that Shadow Man wears a cloak, but that does not
prohibit any vendor from using a figure which wears a cloak, too
(unless the resemblance becomes too obvious, and at that point we're
in a loop).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]