Consider case of a service name

[tieguy]

If a service's name is similar to OpenStreetMap (but it comes from a group or company whose name is not confusing/not similar) how is that handled?

Some areas that could apply:

• Sec. 2.1: prohibits confusing names altogether
• Sec. 4.1: prohibits many domain names that might be used by such a service
• Sec. 5.5: prohibits company names, where the company name is the same as the service

Is more needed?

[simonpoole]

I think the question here is if we rely on trademark law in general to combat remixes and partial remixes of the trademarks (OpenStreetCam), or if we need to explicitly outlaw that. It would be a bit weird since we don't actually own a mark OpenStreetCam to stay with the example, it is simply too easy to confuse with our own marks and infringing because of that.

Maybe it would be better to add an item to the FAQ with examples of what we consider too close to our marks: OpenStreet. , .StreetMap, Open.*Map

[woodpeck]

As currently written and if read strictly, 2.1 would not apply to OpenStreetCam since this is neither an abbreviated word mark nor a word mark comined with other words, but both at the same time! I suggest that we modify the 3rd bullet point under 2.1 to read:

• abbreviate the wordmarks or combine them or significant parts of them with other words (e.g. not "OpenStreetMapWorld", or indeed most combinations beginning with "OpenStreet", ending in "StreetMap", or having the form "Open-Something-Map").

That makes it clear without having to refer to an external FAQ.

[tieguy]

@simonpoole I think it's reasonable to be aggressive here around confusing marks. @woodpeck excellent point.

With those two comments in mind, how does this sound under "not" in Sec. 2.1:

abbreviate the wordmarks, combine them with other words ("OpenStreetMapThing"), or substitute words in the mark ("OpenStreetThing" or "OpenThingMap"), especially where the new combination sounds similar to OpenStreetMap.

[simonpoole]

OK with me.

[woodpeck]

+1