Skip to content

Add a trademark registration policy draft #4

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
crtrott wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add a trademark registration policy draft #4

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
28 changes: 28 additions & 0 deletions policies/trademark_registration.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
## Trademark Registration for Projects

While projects usually retain a common-law trademark to their marks, it can be benefitial
to do an actual trademark registration.

Since such a registration incurs cost both to obtain the trademark, and maintain it over
time, HPSF is not doing it for each member project automatically. Instead projects
have to request trademark registration from the governing board.

#### Criteria for Consideration

- “Established” or higher project lifecycle
- In exceptional cases “Emerging” projects can be considered
Comment on lines +12 to +13
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jbigot jbigot Oct 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wouldn't make such a strong distinction, but instead hint at a gradation depending on the level in the lifecycle. What about this wording?

Suggested change
- “Established” or higher project lifecycle
- In exceptional cases “Emerging” projects can be considered
- Stage in the HPSF lifecycle policy
- the higher the requesting project is in the lifecycle the more likely the request is to be accepted
- registration for "Emerging" projects should remain exceptional

- Demonstrate need/benefit of doing full trademark
- Already ran into issues with invalid use of trademark outside of the own project e.g.:
- Research projects name things invalid
- Commercial products named invalid
- Customers/users confused about what is official (i.e. LF) vs. third party effort
- Strong likelihood of issues coming up e.g.:
- Large diverse user or developer community with many institutions
- Derivative projects are very common
Comment on lines +14 to +21
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jbigot jbigot Oct 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should clearly state that the criteria listed are just examples, and that the requests will be evaluated on a case by case basis, any valid argument will be considered even if outside our initially envisioned list.

Suggested change
- Demonstrate need/benefit of doing full trademark
- Already ran into issues with invalid use of trademark outside of the own project e.g.:
- Research projects name things invalid
- Commercial products named invalid
- Customers/users confused about what is official (i.e. LF) vs. third party effort
- Strong likelihood of issues coming up e.g.:
- Large diverse user or developer community with many institutions
- Derivative projects are very common
- Demonstrate the need/benefit of doing full trademark, this can for example include:
- projects that already ran into issues with invalid use of their name
- e.g. with third party research or commercial projects that used a derivative name and might confuse the customer/user base
- this will especially be taken into account in case the mention of the common law trademark was not enough to have the third party comply
- strong likelihood of issues coming up
- for example because derivative projects are common and might refer to the HPSF project name in their own branding
- here again, an explanation why the common law brand is not enough will strengthen the argument
- this list is not exhaustive and any valid argument will be taken into account by the board


#### Process

- Request to Governing Board by project leads
- (Confidential) presentation laying out how the criteria above apply to the project
- Governing Board reviews and votes on the request
Comment on lines +25 to +27
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jbigot jbigot Oct 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- Request to Governing Board by project leads
- (Confidential) presentation laying out how the criteria above apply to the project
- Governing Board reviews and votes on the request
1. the project leads request the Governing Board to consider the matter,
- this can be done through the TAC representatives at the board
2. (Confidential) the project lead present their needy to the board, laying out ow the criteria above apply
- the board will schedule this presentation at the earliest possible board meeting, and no more than two month after the project request
3. the Governing Board reviews and votes on the request
4. if the request is accepted, the foundation will start the process to legally register the trademark in the region of interest as determined by the board