The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong | Hacker News Reader

The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

digital-goobers.vercel.app

30 pointsgorenb20 comments

I don’t understand who is pushing for this. What’s the other side of the argument here? I may be incorrect but that feels more restrictive than any other programming language trademark policy? It would be like Go saying you’re not allowed to use the word “go” for your packages or create your own custom gopher, it’s such a common and accepted behavior that would feel ridiculously restrictive without good justification.

Can a trademark holder can really stop anyone from modifying the mark? For instance, can Monsanto have a court stop someone from drawing a mutant-looking or withered version of the plant in their logo? (eg. https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/monsanto_wither...)

I don't see what's so unreasonable about the other points.

Yes, a trademark holder can do that, but the problem is that Rust is supposed to be a foundation, a nonprofit. Even if they legally can, I don't think it's that ethical for a nonprofit to do so.

My understanding is that they can't. Trademark protections, IIRC, extend only as far as to not confuse people as to the source of some product. If you created a parody to complain, and not to sell a competing product, then fair use would apply. Do you have any examples of when a Trademark holder has been able to prevent a parody?

In case you want a heads-up about a typo in your post: I see the word segway, which is the trademark name of a two-wheeled personal transport device. I believe you meant to use the verb “segue” instead.

I did mean to use the word segue, and no, it was not a pun about trademarks. I will fix it.

A nonprofit has as much incentive to aggressively defend branding as a for-profit industry. Deceptive, predatory, and for-profit trading on the branding of a non-profit is just as much of a problem for the non-profit and its mission as the same thing is for a for-profit business.

in writing this post, I myself am violating the Rust new policy

No, you're not.

From the draft: We will likely consider using the Marks as part of a domain name or subdomain an infringement of our Marks.

Unless you've changed the URL, neither Rust nor any other mark appears to be in either the domain name or a subdomain. The term "rust" appears in the path, but that has never been an issue.

I have my reservations about these plans, but a lot of the reaction from online commentators feels like the "MongoDB is web scale" of legal advice - poorly understood regurgitation of very complex issues by people who are simply not experts in the field.

This is true, I am not an expert in this field, and have no legal training. I don't claim to be an expert. This is just me, giving me opinion in a blog post.

It's not my intention to sound rude, but I'm pretty sure that understanding the difference between a website's domain and a post URL does not require any legal training.

Is there a new draft?

It seems like the article is about the original draft, which the foundation has already scrapped after the backlash.

Actually, it stopped taking feedback. It has said that it’s considering the feedback, and that they might still accept the draft

The feedback form was open for some amount of time and closed as scheduled, there are only so many things to be said about the draft after all. All of the things mentioned in the blog post have been said hundreds of times over by this point

Where are you getting that they might accept the draft from? That seems like a particularly uncharitable reading of the follow up post

https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/rust-trademark-policy-...

It’s very interesting how enforceable this trademark policy is. There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names.

P.S. I am not a lawyer.

> There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names.

I’m not familiar with any form of trademark fair use that would extend to use of the mark in a product name that is in any way within the scope where (fair use aside) trademark would be an issue. Nominative fair use of trademark would extend to using the trademark in product descriptions to describe specifically the thing that the mark refers to; it lets you say things like that your product is for use with Microsoft Windows. But it won’t let you use “Microsoft Windows” as part of your product name.

There's a case law which contradicts what you say:

- https://casetext.com/case/toyota-motor-sales-v-tabari (about using buy-a-lexus.com and buyorleaselexus.com domains without permission from Toyota)

- https://www.leagle.com/decision/1969761411f2d3501697 (about using Independent Volkswagen Porsche Service without permission from Volkswagen and Porsche)

P.S. May be I am misunderstanding something because I am not a lawyer, but these cases looks pretty straightforward to me.

I believe ”forbidden” only applies in area of programming languages and closely relative tech. Other than that, nope.

I didn't realize, but this was basically unreadable on light mode before. I did change it, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com