muckypup wrote:DM1's points are good ones. I suspect Splosh would be proven to be generic (I dont think even Bill had trademark - much to his annoyance)but I don't think any of us fancy a legal battle.
Indeed - I think you're right about Splosh being generic but I think SploshING is even more generic and not even the same word (only its root ... but that's like saying that Hoover could sue you over the word hoovering ... which they can't - it's a generic description of an act, not a use of a registered trademark (not that Bill had even gone that far, as you say)).
Copyright exists automatically in a published *
work* (not just a word) or artwork (e.g. the logo). That's why I suggested that you'd need to remove the logo, pictures and stories. However, since Bill had not registered the word Splosh as a trademark, they couldn't actually do you for the use of the word. They certainly couldn't do you for calling it The SploshING Forum as that's merely a forum talking about the act of sploshing. I think there's a degree of irrational panic setting in here!
If you think about it, anyone anywhere in the world could set that up without even knowing about Bill's previous work now that it's all gone and it would be impossible for anyone to claim that doing so was violating the wishes of Bill's executors, as it was a completely independent act. Since it would be an open forum of user-generated content only and with no connection to any existing material of Bill's and no financial gain based on his prior work then there would be no connection with his estate or the wishes of his executors and I don't think any solicitor would even consider a case against it as it wouldn't stand a chance of success in court.
The government's Intellectual Property Office is a useful source of info.
Details of Copyright here:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htmDetails of Trademark here (which would have applied to the word Splosh *if* he'd registered it):
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm.htmFrom that page on Trademarks:
Trade marks are not registrable if they:
- describe your goods or services or any characteristics of them, for example, marks which show the quality, quantity, purpose, value or geographical origin of your goods or services;
- have become customary in your line of trade;
- are not distinctiveOn the subject of domain names, the IPO says:
Being the owner of a registered trade mark, does not automatically entitle you to use that mark as a domain name. The main reason being, that the same trade mark can be registered for different goods or services and by different proprietors. Also, someone may have already, and quite legitimately, registered the domain name, perhaps with its use being connected with unregistered goods or services.
The opposite also applies, if your domain name has been properly registered, it does not automatically follow that a similar trade mark will satisfy the requirements for trade mark registration, and/or it may be confusingly similar to someone else’s earlier trade mark.Since TradeMarks can only be protected if registered (which Bill hadn't), you can see that, whilst the word Splosh has become a customary generic description of all sorts of substances used in sploshing, it couldn't now be registered anyway. It is, therefore, unprotected. Even more so,the word SploshING is a word that describes any characteristic of the act itself and usually describes the purpose of it as well as being customary throughout the WAM community and, therefore, not distinctive. Similarly, the IPO explanation of domain names does point out that, so long as you have registered the domain name, it may well be confusingly similar to someone else's earlier trade mark ... and he hadn't even applied to register it as a trade mark! Thus, there is nothing to stop it being called sploshuk.co.uk as it currently is, or sploshing.co.uk (or .com) or whatever.
Whatever the domain name ends up as, I really don't see any problem in heading the site as The Sploshing Forum. (You could even put a strap line such as "The Sploshing Forum - for those into all aspects of WAM"... or whatever). I think that this, in itself, will help to give it a distinctive feel from US-based sites where, within the community, it is more often referred to as WAM but, outside the community, sploshing seems more often to be the act recognised as a fet by the vanilla press. It would also help to maintain Bill's memory - he was always particularly keen that we should refer to the act of sploshing rather than wamming. I think that without something incorporating the word, it will fall into disuse completely and everything will just become WAM. If that happens, this site could become swamped by all the US-based sites where WAM is the main term. So long as wam and wamming are in the searchable descriptive terms then people will find it but it will still 'feel' a little different, in much the same way that Bill had always managed.