[kcorbitt]

While I sympathize with your situation my understanding of trademark law is that it's a sort of "use it or lose it" proposition. If they can't demonstrate that they're making an effort to police their trademark then it can become generic and they lose all exclusive rights to it. I think the best solution here would be for you to choose another domain name.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm...

[moocowduckquack]

It is commentary though, not imitation. You are allowed to comment on things by name. If Shell, for instance sued shelloutsounds.org for the domain, I do not think they would have much of a case and the same applies here. If fixubuntu is using the word 'ubuntu' to mean the company Ubuntu, then the other word is obviously 'fix' and you would be hard pressed to argue that it isn't simply a critical statement rather than an infringing brand.

[ewzimm]

They say they are happy to have the commentary, but their policy states that you cannot use ubuntu in a domain name or the ubuntu logo without permission. This applies to everyone.

[benologist]

Ubuntu may not have the right to dictate usage of their name in a domain - see: paypalsucks.org, microsoftsucks.org, ebaysucks.com, etc.

[ewzimm]

I've checked the requirements for dictating name usage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Re...

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith".

In a UDRP proceeding, a panel will consider several non-exclusive factors to assess bad faith, such as:

Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark;

Whether the registrant registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, if the domain name owner has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; and

Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or Whether by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the registrant's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark.

In this case, I don't think that bad faith could be established, so Canonical may have to adjust their policy to reflect certain use cases in domain names to be completely accurate.

[Tobu]

The policy is just an offer: we won't bother you if you do it like this.

moocowduckquack is explaining that the law already gives rights and obligations wrt trademark use.

It's helpful to know the difference between public law and contracts; they have the same effects (creating rights and obligations), but public law applies to everyone (within a jurisdiction) and contracts don't.

[ewzimm]

I'm not sure what this has to do with a contract. It's just a matter of trademark law.

[Tobu]

You keep posting about things that are not in fact law: the Ubuntu trademark policy, and an arbitration procedure TLDs use. Until you understand the difference, you are derailing the conversation.

[ewzimm]

I think they are both important. The arbitration policy has been tested in court, and it matters because ICANN controls all .com names like this one.

The trademark policy is important because Canonical owns the trademark, and it outlines specific things which they allow, like criticism, and specific things they do not, like using Ubuntu in a domain name without permission. The conversation is derailed if everyone does not understand that it is specifically use of the logo and domain name that Canonical has objected to. The logo is removed, but the domain name remains. It seems that Canonical might not be able to convince ICANN or the courts that the domain name is in bad faith.

We have seen similar issues before. Debian objected to Christian Marillat using the domain name debian-multimedia, so it was changed to deb-multimedia.

[moocowduckquack]

This applies to everyone.

Obviously it does not apply to everyone. Desmond Tutu, for instance is the patron of a very different Ubuntu foundation - http://www.saubuntu.co.za/ - and I doubt that Mark will be sending him any takedown notices anytime soon. Ubuntu itself is also an existing word that is free to use in its original context. Added to this, even if you are using the word ubuntu to mean the company Ubuntu, then in pretty much anywhere in the world you can use a trademarked word to criticise the thing it trademarks, otherwise critics would have a really hard time writing reviews. Criticism is plainly not imitation and it is imitation that trademark law legislates on.

[ewzimm]

I am just describing their policy, which they link to in the email to clear up confusion: http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy

You will require Canonical’s permission to use: (i) any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU which is sufficiently similar to the Trademarks or any other confusingly similar mark, and (ii) any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes.

[. . .]

You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.

You can write articles, create websites, blogs or talk about Ubuntu, provided that it is clear that you are in no way speaking for or on behalf of Canonical and that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.

[hdevalence]

I'm glad that Canonical has graced me with permission to talk about Ubuntu. /s

[ewzimm]

I understand your distaste for Canonical. I don't like their policies either, and I support the FSF in encouraging people to use completely free distros like Trisquel whenever possible. However, I think it's important that we be fair in criticism. They have a very specific complaint, and I think we should address that directly.

Canonical should be criticized for the bad things they do and praised for the good things they do in the hopes that they will improve in the future. If we just set ourselves against them and criticize their every action because of who they are, it will only increase the division between them and the larger free software community. It's a division that needs to be mended. Without their work, free software distributions like Trisquel would not be possible.

trisquel.info