• To: <pdurusau@e...>,"'David Megginson'" <david@m...>
• Subject: RE: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:31:49 -0000
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3E2870E4.7030409@e...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> >Note, also, that the W3C holds a trademark on "XML" and can 
> use it to 
> >prevent any potentially misleading uses of the term.  I'd recommend 
> >finding a name without "XML" in it sooner, so that you're 
> not forced to 
> >change a lot more material later.  Something like "ConciseML" would 
> >probably be OK.
> >
> 
> I just checked at: 
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/ipr-notice-20021231#W3
C_Trademarks

And found the following:

> Terms which claimed as generic are not governed by any W3C license and
> are used as common descriptors by the W3C.

<snip>

> XML (generic), Extensible Markup Language


In this country at least (the UK), you can be sued for issuing a false
trade description if you sell a product under the name "ConciseXML" that
is not both concise and XML. This is quite regardless of trademark
protection.

(Not to be taken as legal advice!)

Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@n...
work: Michael.Kay@s... 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@e...>
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML and ConciseXML
• Next by Date: Re: XML and ConciseXML
• Previous by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread