商標相關之實務討論

維基媒體的商標代表著維基媒體系列計畫的優良品質、誠信、與開放性，同時也防止欺騙、傷害以及傷害本組織使命的活動。維基媒體基金會以公僕自居，為每天努力經營、維持這個標誌名聲的志工社群服務。我們有法律上之義務透過我們的方針與實務，以維持與保護商標權。我們也想要讓社群成員能夠盡量容易的使用本標誌，以推展我們的使命。

我們想討論關於商標的方針與實務的更新。我們希望能夠知道在社群成員、運動組織、以及其他第三方使用我們商標的議題上，你們的想法。我們計畫接下來的幾個月要收集大家的意見，基於大家提出的回饋，擬出對於商標方針與實務的修訂草案，然後進行社群討論，如同我們上次擬定使用規範方針的草案一樣。

以下，我們將描述幾個我們覺得執行不錯的部分實務。接下來，我們會提出一些該考慮的反思。Finally, we list a few specific questions to open the conversation. If you don't want to read all this, you can head straight to the talk page and just give us your comments.

我們覺得今日執行成效不錯的實務

商標法的主要立法原因是為了保護使用者，讓他們能夠預期一定標準的品質與誠信。 我們的商標就跟使命所驅使的維基媒體運動相關活動一樣，讓大眾們可以更輕易的認同自發的草根維基媒體計畫與文章。有許多關於商標實務操作上的正向事物，也有一些方針是我們想要保留並改進的。例如：

• 「我們的方針歡迎社群志工的努力與創意，並在許多情況下允許他們不用尋求特許便可使用維基媒體的商標。」舉例來說，維基分會可以在幾乎所有的例行性活動中都能使用維基的商標。他們可以以組織的身分運用商標跟開放運動溝通，來行銷、尋求贊助與申請補助。使用者可以透過基於商標所創作出來的橫幅看板或按鈕直接地連結到維基媒體的網站。社群成員可以自由地使用維基商標於設計產品如衣服、桌面背景、甚至是蛋糕上。（沒錯！甚至蛋糕上，只要他們不收錢，都可以用這種方式與朋友分享。）

• 「我們在准許商標使用上面都很開明，只要這些使用是支持我們的使命。」我們努力地以快又專業的方式來允許特定一次性社群要求的商標使用。 從2010年2月起，所有來自社群成員或開放運動組織的准許使用要求大約只有10%。我們核准了大約五分之四的社群要求；少許被拒絕的情況是因為用途與我們的使命不一致（見以下例子）。我們相信這麼低比例的准許要求，主要是因為我們的商標方針很大範圍的允許社群在不需要特別許可的情況下使用商標。

會被准許使用商標的例子：

• Bokor Jozsef 大獎的創立
• 線上攝影比賽 維基愛公共藝術
• 維基百科印度浦那社團
• 由東京維基媒體學會所舉辦的 2013日本維基媒體研討會 活動
• 尼泊爾社群的自由與開放碼軟體組織所舉辦的 軟體自由日 活動
• 羅馬尼亞舉辦的 2012年維基愛古蹟 活動

會被拒絕的社群要求範例：

• 要求購買包含「Wikipedia」字串的私有域名，以便聯絡維基百科志工（這個要求被否決的原因在於，很可能會造成域名使用者的身分以及從屬關係的混淆。）

• 「我們與第三方的商標授權強化了使命的價值。」當跟開放運動無關的第三方想要使用我們的商標，比方說某電影製片廠想要在影片中加入一篇維基百科的文章，我們有內部作業流程來確保這個使用要求符合我們的使命價值。我們透過協商、擬定草案、以及在商標協議的執行細節，來保護我們的商標以及社群志工建立起來的商譽。

• 「我們反對誤用商標的行為。」每年社群成員都會寄來百篇以上的報告，記載詐欺行為會其他不適當緣由的違反商標使用規範。 像是MarkMonitor一類的專家，在網路上調查過，並也向我們警告過相關的誤用。我們也對外雇請了法律顧問以幫助我們保護我們全球的商標群。在我們資源有限的情況下，我們的法律團隊追查誤用商標的情形以確保維基媒體的商標與維基社群仍有明確的合作。在仔細而謹慎的評估過後，我們會發出勒令停止通知函。這通常會起效果。在少數幾個沒有其他辦法可以解決的特殊個案，我們考慮採取訴訟一途以保護我們的商標。對那些在網路上畫地為王並耍手段將商標用於私人或商業用途者，我們所有的案子都勝訴。

• 「註冊我們的商標以支持我們的國際社群。」我們是全球性的品牌。為了支持所有的社群成員，我們遵循註冊國際的策略，在世界各地使用我們分配來註冊各式維基商標的資金。 在美國的商標規範，讓我們可以重新取回我們的@Wikinews推特帳戶，現在這個帳戶每天都會有維基新聞的社群成員耕心消息。因為我們一開始沒有在國際上註冊我們的商標，我們必須在其他人想要註冊我們的維基百科拼圖地球的商標時表示反對（澳洲以及巴西曾有過案例，如果他們在這兩國的管轄範圍註冊成功，會讓維基社群在當地使用商標遭到限制。）國際的規範可以避免這樣耗資甚鉅的反對行動，同時也避免其他人不當地將商標據為己有。在我們的限制策略中，我們強調這些標誌最主要是被用於開放運動之上。

關於商標方針與實務之更新的一些考量

我們根據社群價值以及法律見解，盡全力保護以及管理商標。也就是說，為了更符合社群的需要與價值觀，我們覺得我們可以改善政策同時更新實務上的處理方式。

我們歡迎各式各樣的建議，同時也鼓勵您給我們您覺得有哪些最佳方法的回饋。不過在此之前，我們希望跟你分享我們現在正在考慮的議題。

• 「我們的社群價值應該彰顯於我們的新商標方針上。」支持維基媒體這個品牌的好意，已經創造了一個強健、笑臉迎人、而自我管控的社群。我們的目標是制定商標相關方針，讓支持我們的社群在符合我們使命價值的情形下，使用我們的商標，並且避免不支持我們使命的第三方使用我們的商標。

我們的現行商標方針試圖平衡各方需求，以確保我們的商標仍維持自由、中立、且高品質內容的指標，同時也歡迎社群成員、相關運動組織、以及其他我們持續溝通維持關係的人們。In 2009, the WMF Board provided the following guidance for drafting the current trademark policy, which we believe should apply to any new version:

「維基媒體基金會致力於透过以下方式to enabling our mission through a wide network of chapters, community members, and organizational partners who are all able to better achieve their goals by identifying themselves with the Wikimedia community. Because of these efforts, there is a large amount of value and goodwill associated with the name and marks. Trademark law in the United States and internationally requires that the holder of a mark take affirmative steps to protect the integrity of the mark. However, because of our commitment to openness and community empowerment, we wish to do this in a way that allows chapters and community members to be able to continue to identify themselves with Wikimedia marks without being unnecessarily restrictive.

• Trademark rights need to be preserved to fight misuse. As noted, we receive numerous reports of misuse of our marks. Our marks have been misused to create Wikipedia-like sites plastered with advertisements, to facilitate false surveys, to endorse or promote products commercially, to commit fraud through phishing scams, and to create fake Wikipedia pages that confuse visitors. Misuses can result in less-than-positive press, such as this article stating that "[i]n a new pain-free approach to cybercrime, email spammers are playing off Wikipedia's instant brand recognition to sell some instantly recognizable brands — Viagra, Lipitor, Celebrex — of their own."

没有商标权，我们就无法打击滥用行为。 我们无法收回被域名抢注者窃取的维基媒体相关域名。如果我们完全拒绝保护我们的商标这一概念，那么维基媒体项目的特殊价值和声誉就会被我们社区之外的人所掩盖。在考虑符合我们价值观的新商标政策和实践时，我们需要牢记这一点。

• 在政策和实践中必须避免裸体许可。为避免滥用我们的商标，我们需要保留我们的商标权，这要求我们在允许他人使用我们的商标时控制商标使用的质量。法院发现，缺乏质量控制，即所谓的“裸体许可”，可能导致商标权的丧失。

我们的商标政策和惯例必须解决这一风险。为了保护我们的商标，重要的是要保持社区努力开发的质量水平，特别是当商标被许可给第三方时。这包括确保商标许可包含质量控制要求，要求始终如一地保持质量，允许通过检查和社区报告监控质量，并确保在使用不符合质量标准时终止许可的能力。 虽然社区成员帮助确保在社区内使用我们的商标符合我们的使命，但某些第三方用途可能需要额外的警惕和控制。所有这些都是昂贵且资源密集的。但是，如果没有这些保护措施，我们就有可能将商标丢失给那些不遵守或理解我们社区原则的人。

• 现有的商标政策可以改进。以下是一些可能的修改：

• More straightforward presentation in plain, translatable English with less legalese.
• An easy-to-understand summary box, similar to the one preceding the Terms of Use.
• Clarification of when prior permission is necessary and how community members can easily obtain it.
• Simple list of "dos" and "don'ts" for our community.
• Short and consistent explanatory examples.
• Specific guidance for (1) the various movement entities (chapters, thematic organizations, movement partners, and user groups); (2) community members; and (3) third-parties, including commercial parties.
• Consistency between the trademark policy and the FAQs.

虽然我们意识到我们在全球环境中拥有独特的社区需求，但我们可以通过一些政策寻求指导和想法：

• https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
• http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark/sublicense-more
• http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Logo_Usage_Guidelines
• http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy
• http://www.debian.org/trademark
• http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
• http://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-trademark-policy/
• http://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/

We hope that you'll let us know if you know about other like-minded sources.

• Distinctive community logos are important and useful for our movement. We have followed and participated in the discussion about the trademark registration of the community logo used on the Meta page. Although we should have communicated better on this issue, we registered this logo because registration allows us to prevent non-community, non-mission oriented use of the mark. The community logo also shares a combination of colors and symbols that are strongly associated with other registered principal Wikimedia marks. Failure to register the community logo could in theory result in loss or dilution of our principal marks. That said, trademark registration does not preclude the community from using the marks broadly, as long as that use is in furtherance of our mission. We seek community input on what kinds of trademark use should and should not be permitted with this community mark.

Realizing that this is a community decision, we are open to the community proposing a new logo that is not so easily identifiable with our existing trademarks but nevertheless shows affiliation with the Wikimedia movement. One example of this is the distinction between Red Hat marks and the more permissively licensed Fedora mark. If the community felt such a logo was appropriate, the Foundation would be willing to put resources toward that effort. This logo could represent community values, but could be used — per the trademark policy — by any community member for any purpose related to the projects without any authorization or control by WMF. It would be issued with the understanding that, by having no restrictions or oversight, we may lose our right to that mark eventually. However, it would provide a frictionless approach to its use without previous approvals from the Foundation.

• Minimizing friction is critical for large-scale projects. In the open source world, we need to find solutions that move large-scale projects forward without introducing unnecessary administrative or legal obstacles. For almost all GLAM projects, we are able to provide easy one-off trademark approvals because of their manageable numbers. But some projects are difficult to scale, like the planned use of our trademarks on QR codes, conceivably with hundreds of towns and museums. When our trademarks are used in conjunction with QR codes, the trademark agreement is with a third party (museum or town), requiring a separate negotiated trademark license and a non-community third party to effectively monitor and enforce the use of the trademark. Given the number of museums and towns potentially involved, it could require a large volume of trademark licenses. We need to centralize this licensing function to avoid costly mistakes (see below).

With a couple of museums, we have seen successful use of our plain text "Wikipedia" mark in the context of QR codes which does not require case-by-case approval. We could also approve QR code projects that use our trademarks, when they have particularly high community support, such as GLAM support, because of the institutions involved or other prevailing factors. A distinctive community mark for specific projects may be another answer to these large-scale projects. We need to find scalable solutions, like the use of our plain text trademark by the museums or a distinctive community logo for the daily operations of these types of projects.

• Our trademark practices should be constructed to minimize costly mistakes in trademark licensing. Trademark maintenance is complex. It is surprisingly easy to lose trademark rights permanently through mistakes in management of trademark licensing. This is why it is problematic to decentralize the drafting of licensing agreements. While finding frictionless solutions is important, we also need to ensure a coordinated and efficient approach that does not forfeit the trademarks that community members have built up.

• Financial and other conflicts of interests must be declared. Some of our volunteers may also be affiliated with institutions that wish to use our trademarks. They come in all shapes and sizes, such as Wikipedians in Residence, community members working as museum representatives, and consultants who seek to promote particular towns and cities for both tourism and mission-related purposes. We don't presently believe there should be a uniform approach other than to underscore that community members should declare their financial interests and other potential conflicts of interests in their trademark application. When there is a potential conflict of interest, we may also ask for additional support for approval, such as evidence of community support and consistency with mission goals. We believe the trademark policy should reflect this view, but are interested in the community's perspective on the issue.

• Trademark use in names of movement organizations and groups raises special considerations. For completeness, we note that there is an ongoing discussion about the use of our trademarks in the names of thematic organizations and user groups. You can find Geoff's thoughts here, here, and here. The Affiliations Committee is working with the legal team on this point and has established a process for naming user groups based on these considerations.

• Our trademark may not be used to represent work that is not controlled by movement organizations. A trademark licensed to a chapter could potentially be used to represent the work of an unaffiliated organization. Our policy should be clear that movement organizations may not use our trademarks to represent activities they don't host or control, as this potentially causes confusion and may result in a misrepresentation of our trademarks.

• Logo redesign is a possible future project. Some have suggested that not all of our logos are eye-catching or memorable, and that we should test brand visibility and study impact and priority. Our present trademark strategy is based on Wikimedia's existing marks, with a focus on those most in use by the community. We would like to know if the community is interested in changing our brand and logos in part or comprehensively. If we go down that path, we will need to request significant budget allocations in the next planning cycle to support the study and creation of the marks and to register them globally.

Enough talking by us … we would love to hear your comments and concerns about a new updated trademark policy and protocol

We have shared our thoughts and would like to hear yours. Here are some questions to open the conversation. Please feel free to respond to any or none of them on the talk page.

• Do you have any concerns regarding the current trademark policy and practice?
• Do you have any proposals or suggestions for the new trademark policy and future practices?
• What kinds of use of our trademarks would you consider misuse and want the Foundation to help prevent?
• How do we further our movement values with free use of our trademarks in the community while avoiding real naked licensing risks, costly mistakes, and friction-filled process?
• How do you feel about pursuing a community logo that does not share the same colors and symbols with established Wikimedia logos, in order to permit frictionless use by and with community projects?

如果你有任何疑問或擔憂，歡迎到討論頁提出。

感謝您花時間閱讀本頁面，祝您愉快。

Geoff Brigham, General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

Yana Welinder, Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation