Jump to content

Talk:Trademark policy: Difference between revisions

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 2405:204:830E:659A:0:0:1133:8B0 (talk) to last revision by Syunsyunminmin: purely nonsense content
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MovedToFoundationGovWiki|1=Policy talk:Trademark policy}}
{{Archive box non-auto|
* [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archives|Archives]]
}}
===What's new?===
For easy overview of the changes proposed in the new draft, we have prepared a table comparing the new draft to the current trademark policy (2009 policy). Please note that this table doesn't necessarily reflect our current practice, which is sometimes more liberal that the language of the 2009 policy to facilitate community uses of the trademarks. But we need to update the language of the 2009 policy to match our practice and better reflect community values. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


{{collapse top|Comparison table}}
{{:Trademark_comparison_chart}}
{{collapse bottom}}

<br>

===Discussion about section 1 (What does this policy apply to?) ===
{{collapse top|1 What does this policy apply to?}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_1}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:

===Discussion about section 2 (How to use the Wikimedia marks) ===
{{collapse top|2 How to use the Wikimedia marks}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_2}}
{{collapse bottom}}

Discussion:

===Discussion about section 3 (When you may use the Wikimedia marks without asking us)===
{{collapse top|3 When you may use the Wikimedia marks without asking us}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_3}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:

===Discussion about section 4 (Special uses that require permission)===
{{collapse top|4 Special uses that require permission}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_4}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:
* See question above[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trademark_policy#Is_the_cake_a_lie.3F] about whether there is a loophole in 3.7 make-your-own-cake-shirt-pamphlet-etc, which allows bypassing the clear language of 4.7 sans-license-you-cannot-sell-cake-shirt-pamphlet-etc. [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
* I believe this shall be replaced by an obligation to announce the use to WMF and an automatic licensing when WMF does not make objections within some period. The GLAM, Outreach and other activities are very important - and on the other hand, they are very demanding. Every volunteer shall be supported to the maximum extent, and he/she should not be asked to discuss anything with WMF if it is not really an issue. I agree it is good for WMF to know about all these activities, so I suggest the obligation to announce such use, but I think the need to ask for the license is another obstacle which can be the last straw to stop the volunteer preparing such an demanding activity. With the announcement obligation, the WMF receives all the information it needs and if it does find someething to object against, the Foundation shall itself make steps to avoid granting the license. --[[User:Okino|Okino]] ([[User talk:Okino|talk]]) 16:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:: Hard to argue with an auto-grant-system, when talking about something like printing a batch of a hundred t-shirts for some wiki-bash, which has to be planned long in advance, no matter what. But a bake-sale? That can be "planned" in advance, by deciding to purchase an extra few cake-mixes while at the grocery store, on the spur of the moment. If there is a "thirty day cooling-off period" before I can hold the bake-sale... prolly there will be no wikipedia cakes at the sale, right?
:: &nbsp; We already have the revocation-clause in 6.2, which can be used preventatively methinks. If the auto-grant-system is a zero-day-waiting period, with an auto-reply-bot that immediately grants all requests by default, then I can definitely sell my wikipedia-themed cakes at my first bake-sale. However, if I get the WMF a lot of bad press, by using sorbitol instead of good old-fashioned WMF-approved sweeteners, they can change the auto-reply-bot to deny my future requests. Maybe it can even be humans answering, piggybacking on OTRS or somesuch. Does this rationale make sense? [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
::: Hello 74, in this hypothetical, if the cakes are sold commercially, then permission (and perhaps a little advance planning) is necessary. It is important to ensure that we can maintain trademark protection that is earned by the Wikimedia community of volunteers. Just as a cross reference, Luis responded to a similar question in a little more detail [[Special:Permalink/6637946#Is_the_cake_a_lie.3F|above]] -- as he explained, this is a point that can be refined after we have a little more information about how people wish to use the marks. Thanks! [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 23:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

*A couple of comments re: Section 4.4: the phrase "... in a publication in a way that is not fair or nominative use ..." is a bit clunky, in part because it's a definition of a negative. How about " ... in a publication that will be sold for profit," or something similar that is clear & unambiguous. (Of course you'll still want to address fair use). Also, in the collapsed section in which you list the information that must be supplied, ask for the price of the publication as well. This will make it clear whether or not the publication will be sold commercially. {{unsigned|68.147.206.120}} 17:59, 5 December 2013‎
:: Hello [[68.147.206.120|68]], [[Wikipedia:Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)|fair]] and [[Wikipedia:Nominative use|nominative use]], under trademark law in the U.S., depends on how the logos are used, not necessarily whether the publication itself is commercial. It's a complicated topic to include in the policy, but hopefully we can make it easier to understand. Do you think this is clearer?
{{Blockquote|You need a trademark license if you want to use a Wikimedia mark in a publication, unless your use qualifies as fair or nominative use under U.S. trademark law or other applicable foreign laws.}}
:: Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::: I [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy&diff=6990138&oldid=6978538 incorporated this change] in the policy. Thanks again! [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

*In section 4.5 you start with the following sentence: '''"You need a trademark license to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production."''' which indicates that a license is required per one TV episode. However in consecutive sentences and paragraphs you discuss obtaining the license for a TV show or series. Is the license per episode or for the TV series once and for all? I think this section needs to be rephrased. Thanks for your concern! [[User:Asaifm|Asaifm]] ([[User talk:Asaifm|talk]]) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks for pointing that out, [[User:Asaifm|Asaifm]]. A member of the legal team will respond soon. [[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Asaifm}} Good point. We will clarify section 4.5. A license covers only the episode described in the request. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

{{ArchivingSoon}} [[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

===Discussion about section 5 (Prohibited uses)===
{{collapse top|5 Prohibited uses}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_5}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:

====Section 5 prohibitions trump everything else====
Section 5 prohibits certain uses of the marks, while sections 3 and 4 allow certain uses. For greater practical and legal certainty it would be sensible to make it clear that all of the s3 and s4 permissions are subject to the restrictions of s5. That's clearly intended but does not appear to be explicitly stated. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

:That's a good point. I'll clarify this in Sections 3 and 4. Thanks, [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 07:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

{{ArchivingSoon}} [[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 20:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

===Discussion about section 6 (Trademark Abuse)===
{{collapse top|6 Trademark Abuse}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_6}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:

===Discussion about section 7 (Revision and Translation of the trademark policy)===
{{collapse top|7 Revision and Translation of the trademark policy}}
{{: Trademark_policy/Section_7}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:
*
*
*
===Discussion about the [[Trademark/License/Hackathon|Quick License]] (formally "Wikilicense") ===
Discussion:

===Discussion about the [[Trademark_policy/FAQ|FAQ]] ===
Discussion:

===Discussion about the [[Trademark/Request_a_license_form|trademark "request a license" form]] ===
Discussion:

===Discussion about the [[Trademark/Report_abuse|violation reporting form]] ===

===Other discussion===
== Community logo still mentioned in the policy ==

I've been assured by @[[User:Jalexander|James Alexander]] that, because the new policy will not cover the [[Wikimedia Community Logo|community logo]], every mention of it will be removed before the draft is finalized. Yet, it hasn't been done to this day, and the consultation period appears to have finished ([//blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/19/announcing-wikimedias-new-community-centered-trademark-policy/ blog announcement]). {{ping|YWelinder (WMF)|AKoval (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)|LVilla (WMF) |Slaporte (WMF)}} can you please remove almost all mentions of the community logo from the policy before it is presented for Board of Trustees approval? I'm especially concerned about the parts which say that the new policy allows free use of that logo, because it doesn't.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation&oldid=6650164] I'm also pinging {{ping|Sj|Phoebe|Raystorm}} so that they're aware of this issue and can react before they vote on approving the new draft. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
: Hey [[User:Odder|odder]], I'm going to sleep (and we have a holiday tomorrow) so I am unlikely to respond right away but I'm a bit confused so if you could expand that may help the others answer in case they are as well. The new policy, as I read it, only mentions the Community Logo in a couple places to specifically call out that that it is available for free use ( "This logo can be used freely" , "The Wikimedia Community logo can be used freely." etc) with the only possible restriction being that it says that you shouldn't file a trademark registration for the logo.. which seems to make sense. I imagine that if someone attempted to reserve the mark for their own use (through a TM registration) and therefore taking it away from the community they would want us to defend it, I know I certainly would. I would also want the logo mentioned as it is (in a 'this is free to use' way) rather then not mentioned at all because if it is going to be free to use I think we have a bit of an obligation to make sure people know that instead of hiding it. It's obviously always possible I missed something so if there is a piece that looks different I'd appreciate some expansion. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 12:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
::Hi James, thanks for the fast response. I don't know whether the Foundation is planning to protect the community logo from malicious takeovers; I think someone already asked this question and did not receive an answer. I would certainly ''hope'' and expect the Foundation to act in community's interest should such a situation happen in the future, and would warmly welcome a statement from the legal team saying so.

::As far as this new draft and its summary are considered, they mentioned that the community logo could be freely used as an effect of this new policy, which isn't true, since the logo is not covered by it. I personally don't think the community logo should be mentioned at all in this policy, just like you don't mention the Wiki Loves Monuments logo, the WALRUS logo, or other logos created by the community. To show what I meant, and in a wiki spirit, I removed some mentions of the logo from the policy and the summary ([//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy&diff=prev&oldid=7161736 1], [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy/summary&diff=prev&oldid=7161755 2], [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy/summary&diff=prev&oldid=7161761 3]); please do have a look at those edits. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
::: Wait, you wanted trademark protections removed from the community logo, but now you hope that the legal department will protect it from malicious takeovers? You can't have it both ways. You advocated for opening up the logo, now it's open. Don't go asking for legal interventions now... Anyway, I think you're being unhelpful by removing mentions of it. Do you want people to use the community logo or not? If so, then they have to learn about it somehow. It seems reasonable to assume people will learn about it via the trademark policy. Therefore, it seems like it would be in the best interest of anyone who ''actually wants the community logo to be used'' to leave mentions in there. Your over-interpreting of language is getting in the way of the actual goal here, I think. But, hey, whatever. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: I absolutely can have it both ways, @[[User:Phoebe|Phoebe]]. If the Wikimedia Foundation aims to have the best interest of the community at heart, I think it is only reasonable that they would protect the logo against malicious takeovers should such situation arise. Of course, we at the community are perfectly capable of acting on our own, and the Foundation is not ''required'' for us to be able to effectively protect the logo. [[Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo|Reclaim the Logo]] has proven this beautifully, and if the Foundation does not wish to help the community in this case, I think they should make their stance known — it will definitely make it easier for us and our donors to decide whether it's best to donate money to the WMF or maybe choose a local chapter that is actually supporting the community that creates our projects.

::::I don't think I'm being unhelpful by removing mentions of the logo from the policy. That's just your opinion, and while you are entitled to it, please do notice that I did not remove ''all'' mentions of the community logo from the policy (such as section 3.4), but only those that were either misleading or simply factually incorrect. Also, please take into consideration that this logo isn't covered by the policy, so it doesn't make any sense from a legalese perspective to mention it; as I said before, the draft doesn't mention the logos of Wiki Loves Monuments, WALRUS, etc. But hey, whatever. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 22:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
::::: Well, you did ask me to give my opinion, so I did. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::No worries James, this should make it clear: [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy&diff=7162120&oldid=7161736]. And please don't thank me, the past taught me I'd later have to pay you a high price for the honour. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Some recent edits by Philippe seem to imply that something is not clear yet about this matter. Everyone feel free to comment on talk. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:What the fuck is going on ? If the community logo is not trademarked by the Foundation, why should the '''trademark''' policy of the Foundation speak about it ? Or is there any hidden agenda behind this ? I've got to admit that I'm quite pissed at how all this was done... [[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]] ([[User talk:Pleclown|talk]]) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Pleclown}} be polite, please. {{ping|Nemo}} As a board member I don't appreciate last minute editing of the draft; LCA closed the consultation in time for them to submit it to the board, on our calendar, before our meeting; given that, I would like a stable and legal-team approved version to read this week. Everyone had many months to read and consult, and I accept that it will never be perfect; you should too. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
::: Hi Phoebe, thanks for stepping in. I've however no idea what you're talking about, the decision on the community logo (as regards the WMF staff) was taken over 40 days ago, way before the closure of this consultation. Its presence here was either a typo, or some misunderstaing, or a precedence issue on whether the staff should first wait for the board to confirm that they don't want WMF to register the community logo, or instead they can already proceed that way (including in this draft). As you've not yet commented on the issue, perhaps you may want to tell us if you/the board thinks that it takes an amendment to past board resolutions for the community logo not to be registered by WMF, and if yes whether and when the board will discuss the matter, and if yes if it will be decided together with this policy, and if yes where it can be written if not in the policy itself. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: Yes, the matter was brought to us; I don't know if anything's been published yet, I'll have to look. Anyway, no one is arguing with the decision to withdraw trademark registration; that's not in dispute, and mentioning the community logo in the trademark policy doesn't imply that it is. As I noted above, I think mentioning the community logo as one option that is always open to people, in a description in the trademark policy of what people can do with the trademarks and what they can't, is perfectly reasonable. I don't think it's appropriate to keep making substantial edits at this late date, but mostly I certainly don't think it's worth edit warring over. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::: Thanks Phoebe, then we'll wait for info on how you plan to proceed on the matter. I agree that some parts of the page may name the community logo: see also my edit linked above and the comment below, 00:33, 22 January 2014. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 10:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I see a resolution on the topic is included in [[Agenda January 31st-February 1st 2014 Board Meeting]]. I've not reviewed the latest updates to this page and talk but I'm looking forward to the outcome. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 17:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
:::No, @[[User:Phoebe|Phoebe]]. I've been personally assured by @[[User:Jalexander|James Alexander]] that the legal team were working on re-writing the draft after the closure of the [[Community Logo/Request for consultation|request for consultation]] that they started following our trademark opposition. Perhaps unwisely, I trusted James' assurance and did not look at this draft since — so you can imagine my surprise at seeing the logo still mentioned in it (for instance, "''To further make it easier for community members to use the marks, this policy introduces some creative trademark solutions. For example, community members may freely use the [[:commons:File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg|Wikimedia Community logo]]''", is just blatantly false), which, of course, resulted in my starting this discussion. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: Hey [[User:odder|odder]], it appears there may be some misunderstanding about my response to you on that. You asked me if we were going to remove all references to the Community Logo now that it wasn't going to be trademarked. You're right that I said I expected significant changes to be made to the document (and then talked about how it might take a bit of time given everything) but I also said that I expected the lawyers to want "something explicit in there about how 'this logo belongs to the community' too, so that it's obvious to others as well." That seems to be what they've done here. My comment about expecting final changes to take time "as people try to clarify etc" was meant to imply time for anyone within the community who didn't think the changes were clear enough to say so; I was hoping you'd continue to participate in that discussion in case anything was unclear. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]: And I'm cool with that; as I wrote above in response to Phoebe, I'm not removing every mention of the logo from the policy (even though I don't think it should be there), only the parts that were false (see above) or misleading (such as links to a Commons category for community logo derivatives when talking about remixes of trademarked logos). [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::And yet, @[[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe]] just revered my edit, bringing those links back. Let me repeat what I already said: linking to a category with files derived from the community logo—'''which isn't covered by this policy'''–while talking about remixing Wikimedia trademarks is totally misleading. (This is visible in [[Translations:Trademark policy/40/en]] and [[Translations:Trademark policy/50/en]].) Please, please fix it. Thank you. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::::… anyone? [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I have taken another look at this, and I believe it is appropriate for the policy to mention the free use of the community logo, which we have done, for example, in Section 3.4. That logo is the symbol that is on all the Meta-Wiki pages hosted by WMF, so we should explain that the community logo is treated differently from the other Wikimedia marks; as the community consultation showed on the issue, there were differing and strong views on the registration of the mark, so a clear statement in the trademark statement is appropriate to ensure we all move forward on the same page; and, finally, a clear statement will help ensure against any inadvertent registration in the future (after this debate is long forgotten). That said, I will remove the sentence that refers to the community logo in line 73 "(It allows community members to use the Wikimedia marks without a trademark license for Wikimedia community-focused events and outreach work.") since the context of that sentence is subject to different interpretations. We will also post the Wikimedia logo, in lieu of the community logo, in the summary section of the new trademark policy to avoid too much emphasis on the community logo. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Mention the free use, why not. Linking to [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikimedia community logos|remixes of the community logo]] when speaking about remixes of ''trademarked'' logos of the Foundation, no. There is [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikinews logos|plenty]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikiquote logos|others]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikisource logos|remixed]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikimedia Foundation logos|Foundation]] [[:commons:Category:SVG MediaWiki logos|trademarked]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikispecies logos|logos]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikiversity logos|on]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikimedia Commons logos|Commons]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikipedia logos|to]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikivoyage logos|chose]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wiktionary logos|from]]. [[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]] ([[User talk:Pleclown|talk]]) 16:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks [[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]]! We have replaced the links. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 00:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks, @[[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]], this change is greatly appreciated. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 12:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

{{ArchivingSoon}} [[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

==Board review edits==

I have done a final review of the trademark policy as we prepare its presentation to the Board for its January 31st meeting. Upon further reflection, to avoid confusion by community members and others, I want to underscore in the policy what we already say in the FAQ (FAQ 3.4) that Wikimedia marks should be used to represent only the projects for which they stand. Therefore, in Section 5.3 of the trademark policy, I am adding the following sentence: "When you use a Wikimedia mark under this policy, please use it to represent only the project for which it stands." Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

:We have also made a few editorial changes to the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy&diff=7255461&oldid=7219416 Trademark policy] and the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy%2FFAQ&diff=7255537&oldid=7161796 FAQ]. Thanks, [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

: &lt;jocular&gt;<br />...one Foundation under Jimbo, indivisible,...<br />&lt;/jocular&gt; - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]]/<sup>[[User talk:Amgine|meta]] [[wiktionary:User talk:Amgine|wikt]] [[n:User talk:Amgine|wnews]] [http://vanislecirc.wordpress.org blog] [http://standingoffandon.blogspot.com/ wmf-blog] [http://news.google.ca/ goog news]</sup> 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:43, 23 August 2023

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trademark_policy&oldid=25505709"