Re: [ee4j-community] An open proposal for the direction of future Java E

[Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2018-01-23 11:27 AM, Michael Nascimento wrote:

Mike,

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 "Java EE" as a name and brand is owned and controlled by Oracle, via the JCP. Since the JCP is not going to be used going forward, using Java EE (even as a suffix) doesn't seem like a viable option.

You could have said:

 "Java" as a name and brand is owned and controlled by Oracle, via the JCP. Since the JCP is not going to be used going forward, using Java (even as a suffix) doesn't seem like a viable option.

And it would be true and yet you can use it in EE4J for some unclear reason for us, since Java EE is not allowed. Could you enlighten us here?

We are talking about apples and oranges here. EE4J is the name of an Eclipse Foundation top-level project. The questions at hand is what brand can we use for labeling a large family of technologies, enforcing compatibility, and so on. To do those requires a legitimate registered trademark.

Yes, you are there is nothing illegal with calling something "Specifications for Java EE". However this thread is suggesting that this convention be used for all involved specifications and projects instead of picking and trademarking an entirely new name to replace "Java EE". Specifically,  "Extensions for Java EE" or "Components for Java EE" or "Specifications for Java EE".

Let us see how this would work if we tried to trademark "Specifications for Java EE" so that we could tie that label to enforcing compatibility with a specification:

1. We would have to explicitly disclaim the "for Java EE" since that name is trademarked by Oracle. You can use that phrase under the doctrine of nominative fair use, but you cannot trademark it.
   
2. The USPTO would tell us that the word "Specifications" is a generic industry term, and certainly could not be owned as a trademark by the Eclipse Foundation.
   

In other words we cannot trademark "Extensions for Java EE" or "Components for Java EE" or "Specifications for Java EE". And if we cannot trademark them, we cannot use them for what we want to accomplish.

The above is a narrow legalistic explanation of why this wouldn't work. The larger point is what Will Lyons stated in his email.

Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood the proposal?