Strong oppose. This entire proposition completely misunderstands the nature of trademark registration. Under United States law, any entity that actually uses a mark with respect to its goods or services enjoys a common law right to enforce that trademark, in both state courts and federal courts (under the Lanham Act). The only effects of a trademark registration are to assist the trademark owner in proving their ownership of the mark, to alert other potential registrants that the mark is in use (for example, if a shoe company decided to use a logo that looked just like this because they were unaware that this mark was already in use), and to increase certain penalties against infringers. Preventing the registration of this mark will do nothing towards putting it in the public domain, or allowing anyone to use it for anything, because the existing common law regime already prohibits such use. BD2412T15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia community is worldwide, not just in the USA. It seems to me that this logo is being mis-appropriated from the worldwide community through the trademark application, not just from Americans. AugurNZ✐⌕04:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is even less of an issue with respect to "worldwide" use. A U.S. trademark can only be enforced against infringements that occur in the United States or are directed into the United States. Such a registration would have no effect, for example, on use by people in Europe using the mark on a website directed to other Europeans. BD2412T21:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems to me that you are saying is that, as a New Zealander and a member of the Wikimedia user community, I can use the current Community Logo for community activities here in New Zealand, without having to apply to the Wikimedia Foundation for permission under this trademark registration. Is that correct? I can ignore this whole trademark argument entirely? AugurNZ✐⌕23:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as this poll proposes no documentation as to what a trademark implies. From what I'm reading on the talk page, it has no bearing on the copyright. Elfix21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The example of the RAF roundel (Royal Air Force loses battle to control trademark roundel) is an abject lesson in what may happen if one does not trademark in a timely fashion. Failure to protect our trademark not only allows others to exploit it as they wish but could lead them to claim it as their own. Our community is based on freely sharing knowledge and media, but until the rest of the world subscribes to our values we have to play by their rules.--KTo288 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the same source "The Trade Mark Registry ruled the government could hang on to the trademark for the roundel for all other commercial [that is: non-clothing] uses". Your "abject lesson in what may happen if one does not trademark in a timely fashion" is a guile. It's no surprise you cowardly hide behind a pseudonym. --80.114.178.721:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The example of the RAF roundel (Royal Air Force loses battle to control trademark roundel) is an abject lesson in what may happen if one does not trademark in a timely fashion. Failure to protect our trademark not only allows others to exploit it as they wish but could lead them to claim it as their own. Our community is based on freely sharing knowledge and media, but until the rest of the world subscribes to our values we have to play by their rules.--KTo288 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
