Jump to content
brjXRP17

Abandon the "XRP" trademark?

Recommended Posts

@brjXRP17, I agree that Ripple should strongly consider abandoning the XRP trademark as it does not make much sense for an open source technology to be trademarked.  However, could there be other factors to consider?  For example, could another entity then try to trademark it and then file a legal claim against Ripple and anyone else using the term XRP for commercial purposes?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two thoughts....

Shouldn't selfie girl as the CEO of XRP have done that?

and looking at your list I was curious when these were started:

Ripplenet - Filed June 7, 2017
Runs on Ripple with the triskelion - Filed June 14, 2018

No idea, what either means timing wise, but I was curious and looked it up and though I'd share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HazzaHat said:

There are examples of open source technologies that have trademarked their name. Not a big deal and nothing detrimental to do.

Indeed. The best example is Linux, owned by Linus Torvalds.

I assume Ripple is working on an XRP foundation. Ownership of the XRP trademark can then be transferred to this foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, lucky said:

I assume Ripple is working on an XRP foundation. Ownership of the XRP trademark can then be transferred to this foundation.

@brjXRP17 - very interesting topic and important discussion as it relates to the theme of decentralisation that Ripple is promoting.

@lucky‘s approach would have been my first reaction too because the alternative is that Ripple relinquishes the trademark, some crypto-punk comes along, trademarks “XRP” themself and starts causing mischief. 

As @lucky said, perhaps the appropriate arrangements for a Foundation is what Ripple is waiting for. 

I was thinking along these lines for the escrowed XRP as well and alternatives to returning the unused XRP to escrow but that’s a separate topic!

Paging @buckor on this one as he’ll have some thoughts on the trademark matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning the Trademark of XRP doesn't actually have anything to do with XRP itself. 

They could simply be protecting from someone else owning that Trademark. 

It's a non-issue to me. Since again, the actual XRP is not affected whatsoever by the Trademark of the letters XRP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Crypto31 said:

Ripple owning a ton of XRP is much more relevant. Should they abandon that? 

The 55b xrp in escrow can be a problem, but main issue is imo how escrow's sale revenues will be used.

If they're used to make the ecosystem bigger and to make relevant charity acts (eventually together with Bill Gates foundation via Mojialoop) I don't see any troubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Runs on Ripple" TM is interesting.  Leads me to believe they will work hard to clearly brand any usage and further promote adoption; think "Intel Inside" - I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pablo said:

@lucky‘s approach would have been my first reaction too because the alternative is that Ripple relinquishes the trademark, some crypto-punk comes along, trademarks “XRP” themself and starts causing mischief. 

My partner is a trademark attorney here in Australia and did some research for me on this one. It confirms my suspicions about what would happen were Ripple to relinquish the trademark today.

In Australia, it appears that someone (seems to be a trademark squatter given they are based in the Northern Territory) has already applied for trademark registration of "XRP" and the new XRP symbol: https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/1934441?q=xrp

The application hasn't been advertised yet and Ripple (or the relevant foundation) has 2 months from the date of first advertisement to oppose registration. It sets up a very interesting dilemma: does Ripple oppose registration on the basis of (a) copyright infringement (of the image) and (b) filing in bad faith by "Gregory John De Bono" and then face the argument that they are protecting something (XRP) that they have a proprietary interest in? Or do they leave the registration unopposed, wash their hands of XRP in a proprietary sense and hope no one abuses the mark at a critical time in Ripple's business development?

A nice little game theory puzzle. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the first Case you listed in your other thread:

On 10/6/2018 at 10:05 AM, brjXRP17 said:

1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises    (closed)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4180549/ripple-labs-inc-v-lacore-enterprises-llc/

Quote

Defendants have used and continue to use the Infringing Marks in connection with one or more online platforms operated by the Defendants at the following websites: www.rippln.com, www.startmyripple.com and www.ripplncommunicator.com (collectively, the “Infringing RIPPLN Websites”).

Quote

Defendants’ registration and use of the Infringing RIPPLN Websites constitutes cybersquatting with bad faith intent to profit from such use.

So Ripple basically used their trademark to shut down some scam websites. I've got no problem with them exercising their right to do so. Releasing Ripple/XRP trademarks into the public domain might make it more difficult to shut down these scams. If we had to wait for proof of actual harm caused by these scams, then many more potential investors might lose money and it could turn them away. I would let Ripple keep control of their trademark for now.

I don't time to read through all the cases, but I'm sure many are similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×