[theme-reviewers] Clarification of Theme Naming Rules

[Merci Javier]

Just responding to the original post :-)


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:

> Just so that we're clear, I never said anything about Responsive
> at all. My examples were generic, like default Theme.
>
> If everyone else agrees that this is allowed, sure, go for it,
> I personally could care less. At the same time this should
> be changed for all names, not just going after one specific
> name.
>
> And on the end, we're coming down to what Chip just said,
> mess, ugliness etc. It's more than just a name :)
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> Agreed. That's why it is a case-by-case issue. A generic term like
>> "responsive" has several meanings.
>>
>> But Apple very much would have a Trademark infringement claim if someone
>> made a "Granny Smith Apple OS". Likewise, Emil would have a valid complaint
>> if someone made a "Responsive Reloaded" or "Better Than Responsive" Theme
>> name.
>>
>> See what I mean about subjectivity? It's messy. It's ugly. It's subject
>> to interpretation and opinion.
>>
>> My goal is to balance due diligence against the need to have a law degree
>> just to review Themes.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Merci Javier <mercijavier at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There's no trademark infringement on one word, specially none as generic
>>> as responsive.  If one put an "Apple" theme where design was about apples
>>> etc., Apple can't touch that. I know of a  company who sued a competitor
>>> for using Yellow Pages plus and lost, didn't get to court, got thrown out.
>>>
>>> So in effect, if someone used My Responsive World as theme name, that's
>>> no cause to reject the  theme. No infringement at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130130/a51380a7/attachment.htm>