Jump to content
brjXRP17

Abandon the "XRP" trademark?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, lucky said:

assume Ripple is working on an XRP foundation.

Agreed. It's about time this was put in place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My intent with this post today is simply to raise some criticism, hopefully constructive, encouraging this community to debate one (1) of the U.S. trademarks still considered "live" and being protected by Ripple (the company) - the trademark for "XRP." 

Yes but only until SEC decides that ripple is not a security! Afterwards we can finally move on and end this circus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripple (the company) has every right to protect their trademarks, and they should. They need to protect the words and logos for XCurrent, XRapid, XVia, Runs on Ripple (thanks, @aye-epp), etc., and again, that is encouraged. Their business would be harmed if someone else tried to use "XCurrent" and that logo in the context of financial services (obviously). That is why the trademark protection exists. 

But argue the other side for me, @Yodaxrp, @Crypto31 and @Plikk? No one person or entity controls XRP. Thus, in the context of financial services, what does Ripple (the company) have to gain from keeping the trademark?
 

Let's say we all start a business together, we decide to go the route of an ICO, and we name our token named XRP. One could argue that would be confusing right? How would people distinguish the two marks? If our new company were to file for trademark protection on our new token, we would be (or should be) denied trademark protection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because XRP, in this context, not only already exists and is being used by multiple companies, but the mark is in already in the public domain and one cannot file for protection on something that is already in the public domain. Apple (the company) and the NASDAQ do not own the trademark for "AAPL" or that stock ticker. However, if our new company decided that we wanted to go public (ha, we're killing it guys), we would be not be able to use "AAPL" as our unique identifier or stock ticker. Hence, Ripple (the company) as nothing to worry about if someone else we to come along and try to use XRP as their token/digital asset/cryptocurrency name. Why should they keep using their resources (money and legal team) to protect it?
 

Lastly, I wanted to go over two (2) foundation examples pertaining to trademarks. The Linux Foundation owns the trademark for Hyperledger. That foundation was awarded the mark for "Hyperledger," describing it as "computer and mobile device software, namely, software for implementing and recording financial and business transactions." All the foundation did was trademark the name, not the code.

The Stellar Foundation does not own the trademark for "XLM." 

 

cc: @Pablo @Sebastian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, brjXRP17 said:

Ripple (the company) has every right to protect their trademarks, and they should. They need to protect the words and logos for XCurrent, XRapid, XVia, Runs on Ripple (thanks, @aye-epp), etc., and again, that is encouraged. Their business would be harmed if someone else tried to use "XCurrent" and that logo in the context of financial services (obviously). That is why the trademark protection exists. 

But argue the other side for me, @Yodaxrp, @Crypto31 and @Plikk? No one person or entity controls XRP. Thus, in the context of financial services, what does Ripple (the company) have to gain from keeping the trademark?
 

Let's say we all start a business together, we decide to go the route of an ICO, and we name our token named XRP. One could argue that would be confusing right? How would people distinguish the two marks? If our new company were to file for trademark protection on our new token, we would be (or should be) denied trademark protection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because XRP, in this context, not only already exists and is being used by multiple companies, but the mark is in already in the public domain and one cannot file for protection on something that is already in the public domain. Apple (the company) and the NASDAQ do not own the trademark for "AAPL" or that stock ticker. However, if our new company decided that we wanted to go public (ha, we're killing it guys), we would be not be able to use "AAPL" as our unique identifier or stock ticker. Hence, Ripple (the company) as nothing to worry about if someone else we to come along and try to use XRP as their token/digital asset/cryptocurrency name. Why should they keep using their resources (money and legal team) to protect it?
 

Lastly, I wanted to go over two (2) foundation examples pertaining to trademarks. The Linux Foundation owns the trademark for Hyperledger. That foundation was awarded the mark for "Hyperledger," describing it as "computer and mobile device software, namely, software for implementing and recording financial and business transactions." All the foundation did was trademark the name, not the code.

The Stellar Foundation does not own the trademark for "XLM." 

 

cc: @Pablo @Sebastian

Like I said earlier, there are so many legal implications and different jurisdictions around the world to consider, that no one on this forum is capable of answering your question. I place my trust in the legal team of Ripple and won’t even try to dig in further. It is as pointless as prediction the price of XRP imho. 

(This does not mean I don’t think a healthy discussion is possible here, feel free to discuss it and share opinions!)

Edited by Plikk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trademarked open source software is not such an oddity. 

Red Hat linux has done this with their enterprise solution, just like Ripple: https://brand.redhat.com/logos/trademarks/

It makes sense for Ripple to let the XRP logo and any other legal ownership claims go, to futurer distance themselves from the XRP network, so the SEC doesn't breath down their neck, also will help against lawsuits that try to tie Ripple to XRP ownership/centralization, IMO.

Edited by enrique11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, enrique11 said:

It makes sense for Ripple to let the XRP logo and any other legal ownership claims go, to futurer distance themselves from the XRP network, so the SEC doesn't breath down their neck, also will help against lawsuits that try to tie Ripple to XRP ownership/centralization, IMO.

That's a good argument, @enrique11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[mention=7311]brjXRP17[/mention] - very interesting topic and important discussion as it relates to the theme of decentralisation that Ripple is promoting.
[mention=340]lucky[/mention]‘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 [mention=340]lucky[/mention] 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 [mention=10253]buckor[/mention] on this one as he’ll have some thoughts on the trademark matter.
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. [emoji4]
@Pablo, et al, this is definitely a touchy issue. I don't have anything definitive to add, other than if Ripple were to let the trademark go, someone (according to U.S. law) could trademark "XRP" for commercial use. I do wonder, however, if that would only apply to merchandise and/or other service that are not connected to the current XRPL?

So, what incentive does Ripple have to maintain the trademark? I can think of about 55b reasons! However, I also see the "Devil's Advocate" argument about Ripple needing and attempting to separate itself from XRP as far as its creation, securitization, etc.

For me, this is a slippery slope. I trust Ripple is going to protect and allow use of the mark as they have. You see, Ripple has allowed XRP to be used by many individuals, media outlets, merchandisers, etc., without setting the precedent of challenging that use in court. They obviously feel that current uses are within norms for the mark. That said, if they were to bring a suit against me for using XRP in this post, there is a defense i have in that Ripple has allowed this use by many people and am able to provide evidence to the fact. Why would they allow all the previous use and attempt to begin to defend the mark in that manner now. However, they do retain the right to that defense.

Ripple also has an incentive to defend the mark for commercial use with its partners. If contracts are entered into for the purchase, sale, distribution, etc, of XRP, and then XRP cannot be used by Ripple, they open themselves to even more problems that will cost more in legal fees to rectify.

My opinion is that it is less expensive for Ripple to defend the mark than to have to potentially challenge a "squatter" in the future and/or have to pay to change contracts, software, etc.

I trust Ripple. What they have been doing has been working. Why "fix" something that isn't broken (or, in this case, why break something that doesn't need fixin?).

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 10:14 PM, brjXRP17 said:

XRP is also decentralized. No one, including a company, should be able to trademark "XRP" and establish the presumption of ownership over the three letters "XRP" in the context of financial services. 

And you guys told me it's all the evil tongues that XRP is said to be centralized :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope they should maintain custodianship of it until the network has reached sufficient critical mass that their guidance in no longer needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 9:14 PM, brjXRP17 said:

No one, including a company, should be able to trademark "XRP" and establish the presumption of ownership over the three letters "XRP" in the context of financial services.

The irony is that the only way to prevent some individual or company to register the XRP trademark, you have to register it before them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 1:24 AM, jag216 said:

Does holding the XRP trademark allow them to pursue projects like XRP Classic and XRP Plus for misuse of the term? 

That is a good question. If a company chooses a name like XRP Classic, it undoubtedly wants to be considered an XRP branch. Maybe there is some legal procedure for this, I don't know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 6:35 PM, Arenys said:

That is a good question. If a company chooses a name like XRP Classic, it undoubtedly wants to be considered an XRP branch. Maybe there is some legal procedure for this, I don't know

Copyrights have always been hard to understand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 8:04 PM, LanaVeil said:

Copyrights have always been hard to understand

Do you think they are taking advantage of XRP brand popularity? To me, it seems to be a different company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...