[dijksterhuis]

> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.

> Please be aware that GitHub and GitLab are exceptions to this Policy because they are subject to explicit licensing arrangements that pre-date, and thus take precedence, over this Policy.

[fc417fc802]

That seems overly broad. Is there precedent for that?

[seanhunter]

That seems pretty normal to me. Try this thought experiment. Suppose I make an accessory that adds an ironing board to the back of F150 trucks[1] and I call my company “Fordboard”? Do you think that portmanteau is a trademark violation or not? I think Ford probably would fight and win against me if I did such a thing, in particular because I am using the registered mark (Ford) to refer to the actual thing so I can’t pretend that’s just a coincidence. That is also the case here with gitclassic. If I called my guitar shop that I might have more of a leg to stand on.

There’s more discussion of the legal aspects of portmanteau words here https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/07/almost-everything-you-...

[1] I didn’t say it’s a good business idea, I came up with the portmanteau first.

[fc417fc802]

Well you aren't referring to a truck or even a vehicle. However I agree that your example product is intimately related to the trademarked item just as it is in this case. That's exactly why I'm wondering about precedent. It seems overly broad to me, a layman, but could well be the established status quo.

I would naively expect it to depend on whether the mark could reasonably be confused by a customer with the name in question. To that end fordboard and gitclassic seem problematic since they read like two separate words, one of which is the protected mark. In contrast, something like gitea seems like it ought to be in the clear - no one is ever going to think "git [space] ea huh wonder what ea by git is". (Ford should totally release a vehicle under the name Board that would be hilarious.)

> it is better when there is an overlap in the distinctive sound of the two words.

From the article you linked - this matches my intuition and is largely why I feel like gitea ought to be in the clear. Unfortunately it seems to be about trademarking portmanteaus as opposed to the creation of portmanteaus using one or more trademarks. (More is better - my next terrible idea is gitzurite.)

[lemagedurage]

Wow, that feels quite restrictive. "Classic for Git" would be allowed, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

[PufPufPuf]

So magit is also in breach?

[Pay08]

Maybe since it's free and therefore not a "product", it's fine? But then you also have things like gitkraken, which is certainly a service.

[Zee2]

What about Gitea? Hmm…

[dijksterhuis]

only thing i found after a relatively quick sleuth

https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/4175