[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.