User talk:Rabhyanker - Knowledge (XXG)

866:. I can tell you that the display and publishing of these marks along with their USPTO source information identifying them as federally registered U.S. trademarks does not violate intellectual property law. In fact, the main goal of the United States intellectual property system is for the government to exchange limited monopoly rights in exchange for disclosure of intellectual property. The cited U.S. registered trademarks, including the Ronald McDonald logo, the Microsoft Logo, the Coca-Cola logo are self-provided by the respective companies/owners to the United States Patent & Trademark Office for the specific purpose of dissemination and publishing as U.S. federally registered logo trademark interests. The edits and publishing made is consistent with U.S. federal government policy and such use is encouraged to help the public better understand the source of trademark rights. It should be noted that these marks correspond to actual, and documented recordings as registered trademarks at the United States Trademark office, and are not to be confused with other stylistic works of authorship which may embody stylized artistic forms of such logos. Such items may have distinct that copyright interests. However, the published marks on Trademarkia that you challenge are registered U.S. trademarks have been filed to help identify the source of goods and services on which these marks are affixed. Unlike copyright records, for which the U.S. government releases only index information (as opposed to the actual work of authorship), the cited trademark logos are U.S. federally registered trademarks of these respective companies under United States trademark law. The goal of U.S. trademark law is to let the public be aware of trademark rights of owners through the open and free publishing of such logo marks in the public record, and for public dissemination, to help identify the source of a particular type of good or service proffered with such marks. The 1166:

When this copyright interest used to identify a source of goods and services, there is fair use if what is being reproduced is the exact same logo trademark published by the U.S. trademark office. In other words, when reproduced by the public for the purpose of identifying a source of goods and services, such use is fair use of public information serving an important and legitimate government purpose to inform the public of ownership rights associated with the source of goods and services marked with such logos. Also, it should be noted that when government work (or any other work of authorship including non-government works) is put together in a compilation of individually copyrighted works of authorship (e.g. in this case being used under fair use provisions) or government public publications, a new resulting copyright is derived in the arrangement of that aggregate work if the resulting compilation is more than a mere natural (e.g., alphabetic) arrangement. Direct reproductions of of public information can be characterized as public use of public information. In summary, the term "fair use" is applicable when describing the publication of information as it relates to the rights of owner of copyright. In contrast, the term "public use" is applicable when describing the publication of information as it relates to the interests of the United States government to disseminate public information related to intellectual property rights in exchange for a limited monopoly. As such, these edits qualify for that as well. I will update my posts to clarify this further.

1926:), you are simply wrong and not citing appropriate web authority. Trademarkia licenses all of its data officially through the United States Patent and Trademark Office through a paid subscription made available to it under the Freedom of Information Act, and the data is daily synchronized to it . Trademarkia's data is fully licensed from the USPTO, and you are welcome to contact a person at the USPTO's Bulk Data Licensing Divison to verify Trademarkia's accuracy and integrity. Trademarkia's search has indexed both TESS and TARR databases, and hence people can search from the year 1870 on Trademarkia, which is a larger search than the USPTO's TESS database, which goes back only to the year 1932. You will find that Trademarkia has been mentioned in more than 1000 highly credible blogs since its launch on September 15, 2009 , and achieved a Page Rank on Google of 5, indicating that it is a HIGHLY trusted site. You can install the Google Toolbar to verify this. Furthermore, Trademarkia has grown to become an Alexa and Quantcast top 125,000 site in its first 5 months, which is among the fastest growth rates ever for a search site of this type, further showing its value and importance of Trademarkia . Lastly, if you check Delicious, Trademarkia has been bookmarked by more than 500 people in its first 5 months, setting a record for sites of this type of social bookmarking, further indicating the Trademarkia's value . 871:

identifying their corporate source, not only is consistent with United States intellectual property law, but furthers a substantial and legitimate U.S. government interest. It is in the interest of the United States government and the public to provide free and open dissemination and knowledge of trademark rights so as to have a more informed public and to provide clear attribution to the source of goods and services. My Knowledge (XXG) edits and posts of these trademarked logos are consistent with and furthers this public policy. These images are fully public when used to identify the source of goods or services as in my Knowledge (XXG) edits. Therefore, these logo marks as currently posted should stay, and the legitimacy for the free publishing of these marks when used to identify specific trademark ownership interests in context of company history is indisputable. If you have further comments, do let me know. --

1866:

the site open and transparent. Why then should I be stopped from improving Knowledge (XXG)? Sure, my edits may in some way benefit Trademarkia, and I have a personal interest in its success. However, my edits also benefit Knowledge (XXG) and I have a personal interest in making Knowledge (XXG) a success. I have invested lots of personal, non-billable time in improving Knowledge (XXG), and I find Knowledge (XXG)'s inaccuracies related to trademark and brand information quite appalling. Trademarkia uniquely helps to solve a gapping hole in the accuracy of information posted on Knowledge (XXG). As such, I should be allowed to continue improving postings on Knowledge (XXG). I have fixed and edited dozens of articles that have simply been wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete when it comes to historical brand information. You can audit my record over the past few months, its value stands for itself.

633:

property/trademarks. Please let me know if my posts can be better. I am in Mountain View, call me at 650-965-8731 if you wish. I believe that Trademarkia adds significant historical value, as there is no place on the Internet to search for Trademarks filed before the year 1932. Furthermore, Trademarkia is often the first site to release public information related to Trademarks and therefore it adds significant context to posts on Knowledge (XXG). I have corresponded regarding this topic and conflict of interest with Knowledge (XXG) editors on the Knowledge (XXG) conflict thread, and have made great effort to ensure that my posts meet the neutrality and editorial guidelines of Knowledge (XXG) moving forward. Do let me know if there is something more I can do to improve the quality of my posts. Happy Holidays. -

1088:

That being said, a company wishing to assert its U.S. copyright interest in U.S. federal court for such legitimate use of actual images of U.S. trademarked logos would find itself in the unenviable position of diluting/eliminating its own U.S. trademark rights. Furthermore, to the extent that this is a logo published by a U.S. federal government agency as part of its public dissemination of public information, it is a public work when regarded as a whole work of authorship comprising a plurality of trademarked logos in a calendar year/period. I have updated the

1378:

can't include them, just that we have to justify the image's use through a non-free rationale. For trademarks being used to represent companies and the like, this is usually presumed to be ok without much question, though there are several facets regarding historical logos and the like that we consider. Again, this is not to dissaude you from using logos, just that we need to mark them non-free if they are not clearly in the public domain (due to age or simply being uncopyrightable). --

2301: 1691: 1411:

should be used consistently with the spirit of its goal of helping to identify the source of goods and services used in commerce by the owner of this registered trademark, and it should be published with a corresponding link to a federal U.S. trademark associated with its image." Can we create a new wording for future marks that are similarly situated? I dont know how to do this, but if you can help, that would be great. --

1980:

those two toolbars. Page Rank does not indicate a trust level in-and-of itself, and should not be used as a sole indication of such. There are just as many refs in WP that have low page ranks as high ones. You stated "I have invested lots of personal, non-billable time in improving Knowledge (XXG)" - which is a true statement for the vast majority of all WP editors and probably an unnecessary statement. Hope this helps.

4120: 4012: 3914: 3816: 3718: 3435: 3367: 3299: 3231: 3163: 3095: 3027: 2959: 2891: 2823: 2594: 2432: 2329: 2196: 2099: 2002: 574: 1064:). Your points on the freedom to distribute trademark records are probably valid, but issue is copyright. Do these companies really transfer the copyright of their logos to the US government? Or do you consider the free use of trademark a “fair use” of their original copyright? In terms of copyright I refer to the applicant, as the US Government does not hold copyrights in this case. 2533: 1733: 1597: 680: 276: 1686: 1696: 1950:, someone who has received more than 40 endorsements from peers on LinkedIn (more than any other U.S. patent and trademark attorney in the United States), and a Co-Founder of Trademarkia . I would like to continue to add value to Knowledge (XXG) in this transparent way. Please let me know your thoughts before I continue improving Knowledge (XXG) edits. 3672: 443: 378: 1673: 1119:

copyrighted image, but then you say they are public use), provide contradictory advice. I'm also concerned with the fact that you've stepped into an area that affects probably tens of thousands of articles and images. Such sweeping changes need to be vetted. I'm not saying you are wrong (near as I can tell you are 100% correct), but you

173:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Knowledge (XXG). Under the 1944:

That "outraged attorney" post is a paid press release by a Trademark search and filing service through a paid Press Release through PR-USA.net. That attorney (who incidentally PAID for that press release as you will notice) is upset because the trademark search service that he charges for is now in

1087:

For the purposes of identification of the source of goods and services in this context, the use of the U.S. copyright interest associated with a registered and publicly disseminated U.S. trademark logo is under the purview of fair use. The owning company does not in any way surrender its copyright.

111:

Mate, he's 100% right. The deletion discussion is going to proceed whether you want it to or not, and by removing the tag you're preventing people who see the article and are interested in keeping it from knowing where to go. Instead of just removing it, why not go to the discussion page and be one

2730:

I think this group is missing a huge opportunity. Here is a person, self-interested or not, who has access to gobs of specific, reliably sourced information, and we're running him away like a common vandal. If he could learn to incorporate his edits with less trivia and more feel for article flow,

1118:

Rab, while I certainly appreciate your input on the matter, I think it would be best to discuss such substantial changes (5 KB of additional text) on the talk page first. In general, I agree with you, but some of the nuances you've used (i.e. use of trademarks falls under Fair Use implies a use of a

338:

deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the

1865:

Hello, it's Raj Abhyanker. I have made it clear that I am a co-founder of Trademarkia, that I am an IP attorney, and that my law firm supports the site on legal issues. Trademarkia offers unique historical information that adds value to existing Knowledge (XXG) pages. I make my affiliation with

1410:

A more appropriate wording would be "This work is provided by the owner of the copyright and trademark interest to the public for limited purpose of determining and notifying of federal ownership rights of goods and services associated with a registered U.S. trademark bearing this image. This mark

1186:

Point taken. Let's try to make it easier to understand in Knowledge (XXG) then. Like I said before, your inputs are certainly welcome and a breath of fresh air. We just need to make sure there aren't any other problematic language issues (legal-ese and Wikipedian dialects don't always mesh well :-)

861:

Bar. The USPTO itself writes "Records open to the public are searched by users for the purpose of determining ownership for other property rights with respect to patents and trademarks", and encourages the public to access and broadly disseminate such public releases through its bulk downloads and

2740:

There is a lot of great work you can do for this encyclopedia. If you work for a company, that's fine, so long as you keep your edits in line with the longstanding policies that have evolved on this site. Editors who don't are usually reverted quickly and sometimes banned (not by me). You can use

1234:

Per my comments above, I agree with you. It is not a transfer of copyright interest. However, when the exact same logo as the one that is used in the U.S. federal trademark is used to inform the public of the source of a good or service, that is fair use of the copyright interest under both U.S.

1212:

a transfer of copyright from the company or organization registering the trademark to the US Gov't. That image does not become public domain simply because the gov't has published it. (the implication of the PD-gov license). The copyright of the trademark image still follows all other regular US

1123:

get pushback on this and working through the talkpage will reduce some hostility, provide a better consensus, and work out any ambiguities before making such an addition. I'm also concerned with your addition of yourself as a source. While you certainly are an expert on the subject, you may not be

647:

article regarding the prior Wiki trademark. I had several concerns: most importantly, relevance - I don't think the information is sufficiently relevant, since the trademark is not for the same concept. I also had concerns about accuracy (trademarks in one field do not necessarily prevent the same

1165:

Thank you for your response. I must point out to you that there is no inherent conflict between my comment regarding "fair use", and "public use" of public information. The artistic elements of the logo trademark, such as the Ronald McDonald trademark, have underlying U.S. copyright interest.

1979:

Hello, wanted to post this here as opposed to on the noticeboard, as it is not directly related to that particular discussion but thought you'd appreciate it for future reference: Quantcast and Alexa are not considered valid metric sources, as they only report data from users who have installed

1500:

Hi. I have removed the section that you added to this article for the time being- if you have concerns about the current wording of the guideline, or feel there are issues that should be added, you are welcome to discuss them on the talk page, but adding discussions such as that to the guideline

1377:

You are right that we consider the inclusion of trademarks important as company/organization/brand identification, regardless if they are copyrighted or not. When the logos are copyrighted, then we have to consider them as non-free, identifying them as trademarks, but again, this doesn't mean we

1128:

are not permitted on Knowledge (XXG). Lastly, guideline pages should not contain signatures; if you would be so kind as to remove yours, it would be appreciated. Once again, THANK YOU for such an addition. Such clarity and having an expert on the subject is a GREAT addition to this encyclopedia.

870:

itself write "After the information is recorded, the records and associated documents can be inspected by the public and are not confidential, except for documents that are sealed under secrecy orders or related to unpublished patent applications." As such, these marks when placed in context of

1067:

This is not really an issue of "can this be done" on Knowledge (XXG), just about how to do it right. If you do not believe the original company loses copyright, then these images should be tagged {{Non-free logo}} {{Trademarked}} Or in cases where copyright has expired due to age use {{PD-US}}

1327:

Editors are free to use it if used in Knowledge (XXG) pages of the owner of the trademark to help the public better understand the ownership rights associated with a U.S. trademark, or the source/origin of a particular good or service. The U.S. trademarked logo should not be used to dilute

885:

This is the picture of the original Ronald McDonald as pictured on the United States trademark application filed in 1967 by the McDonald's restaurants. On Tuesday, September 05, 1967, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for Ronald McDonald. This trademark is owned by McDonald's

1429:

of determining and notifying..." because while we on Knowledge (XXG) can control how the image is used, we cannot control its use by reusers. Again, we're not saying that these logos are a problem because of trademark law - that's what BQZip pointed to above - but for those where there are

1945:

jeopardy. He can no longer charge for that service because of Trademarkia. You should also note that I am also an IP attorney, a member in excellent standing with the United States Patent Bar for more than 10 years, the State Bar of California ,the State Bar of Minnesota<ref<

632:

Hello Allie, I appreciate your feedback, and have emailed the authors you mentioned to not spam Knowledge (XXG). My posts span a variety of topic areas, but generally add value to by enhancing incorrect/incomplete information on Knowledge (XXG) posts when related to intellectual

1395:

Do you feel the license {{PD-USGov}}, which states "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." is appropriate and applies to this case?

2564:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 1764:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 1430:

copyrights, we have to treat them as non-free and thus mark them appropriately. The US gov't does not own the copyrights on the images; their republishing of them is a necessary requirement for registering for the trademark but does not suddenly remove copyright. --

2789:

Recognize that reliability has nothing to do with your personal expertise or credibility. It's only a technical policy which requires that other sources identify you as reliable. In other words, even if you're honest, Knowledge (XXG) never relies on someone's

140:

because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Knowledge (XXG) (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its

1056:

Interesting read. However my objection over is under how it is licensed, "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code."

246:. My personal non-legalistic summary (all disclaimers apply) of the notability guidelines: If your company is notable enough to be included in Knowledge (XXG), then someone you don't know and who has no connection with the company will write the article. -- 458:

policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should

2785:

Also remember that trademark information probably seems much more important to you than it is for others. Knowledge (XXG) is a reference for the masses and should accommodate the most people when possible, and turn off the least people every time

648:

word being used in a different field of endeavour) and, after seeing that you are connected with Trademarkia, concerns about conflict of interest. Please do not re-add this information, as I don't feel it is appropriate for you to be adding this.—

340: 290:, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the 886:

Corporation of Oak Brook, Illinois. The description provided to the USPTO for is drive-in restaurant services.The USPTO has given the trademark serial number of 72279672. The current status of the trademark is registered and renewed. --

1274:

the equivalent of "free use" (free being the "free as in thought", not "free as in beer" concept). An image on WP that is used under fair use assumptions is considered non-free because it is still burdened by copyright (but note,

580:

to be. I've not blocked them from editing other than blocking that last account, which was too blatant to ignore, but I'd really like to know what is going on, especially that an account you likely control has created the article

1447:

Yes, you are right Masem. I understand now. I will mark any future logo trademarks that I find that have enough artistic form to warrant separate copyright interest in a similar manner as being 'non-free' images.

2560:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

1760:

197:

explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

1611:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also 1623: 1813: 1670:, me podrias avisar a mi pagina de discusion (talk) cuando creas un articulo nuevo sobre informatica, seria interesante para crearlo en la Knowledge (XXG) en español. Thank You. --Saludos 813: 805: 3405:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3337:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3269:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3201:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3133:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3065:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2997:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2929:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2861:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 1235:

copyright and trademark laws. This is further substantiated by the fact that the USPTO makes this information freely available both in online and bulk form for public dissemination.

1622:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

2741:

your background to improve thousands of articles. If you need any help with policies, feel free to ask me or another editor. Also, a quick read through basic guidelines could help.

112:

of the first to add your opinion? Another good reason not to remove the tag, by the way, is that doing so is a blockable offence and I won't tolerate your repeated removals. Okay?

234:

I've already directed you to the notability guidelines, but I should also point out that writing about one's own company or products is strongly discouraged for reasons of avoiding

3692:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

3653:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

3621:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

299: 3401:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3333:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3265:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3197:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3129:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3061:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2993:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2925:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2857:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

1425:

This is the problem - free content on WP cannot be burdened by reuse clauses because we want people to use and reuse what we provide. This is in immediate conflict with "for

1816:

has Ben coped to a square photo, removing extra blank space and successfully moved to the commons, if toy have any questions please do not hesitate co contact me. Thank you

607:

I'm also seriously considering deleting the article, or at least nominating it for deletion, especially given that you or your colleagues wrote it, that it doesn't meet our

1709:

Hey you added quite a lot of new content to the Apple article, which appeared to be mostly unsourced and some of it didn't really seem relevant. Can you discuss it on the

381:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page

3548: 1568: 1533: 817: 2772:

Use some sources besides your site. It might seem inefficient, but a great way to round out your potential conflict of interest is to incorporate some other references.

739:

article, I also hapened apoun the FaCt on your user page that your feild of specalty is trademaks. Is there any way you cloud help me thith te porblems I'm having with

3648: 3616: 2766:

Details are only useful if they're relevant or interesting. Serial numbers are basically worthless. Precise dates are excessive, where simply a year would suffice.

697:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 3462: