--- "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> wrote:
I think you should stay away from terms that are known to have unresolved
trademark issues
FWIW. We recently abandoned the trademark application:
See http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=v2nqja.2.1
(If that link doesn't work, just search for "DomainKeys" on their TM search
page).
The reasons for abandoning were twofold. First the application was being
rejected on the basis of being "too specific". While we could have pursued the
application and appealed the rejection, the second reason was that we
ultimately decided that a TM (albeit a solely protective TM) would hinder
adoption rather than help.
The "too specific" response has a couple of implications - at least as I
understand things as a non-legal person. First off, no one currently has a
trademark on this term, in spite of what some web sites might claim. Second
off, given our repeated efforts, the USPTO is very unlikely to allow any
successful application of this name, in this space, in the future.
I will note, with some irony, that the USPTO apparently referred to a large
amount of our own DK material showing up on various search engines as reason
for not awarding the TM. Go Figure!
Confirmation of all this will come by way of the forthcoming IPR statement on
the DKIM draft. In that statement no TM claims will be made.
Mark.