![Apache 20th Anniversary Logo](/img/asf-estd-1999-logo.jpg)
This Process Overview For Policing Apache Brands is a simple turnkey way that Apache® project PMCs can police use of their own trademarks and respond to questions about use of their brand. This document is focused on Apache committers and PMC members; outside parties should start with our Apache Trademark Policy.
To ensure that the ASF is able to continue to use our existing trademarks to refer to our own software projects and communities, we need a process that allows us to address infringements of our trademarks by others.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT This is a proposed draft - very useful to start from, but not complete yet. Comments needed; hope to have some tooling to assist PMCs as well.
PMCs need to take responsibility and can use the Guide for Evaluating infringements.
Once we are made aware of potential infringements or misuses of an Apache project's trademark, that PMC needs to take action.
Process design goals are to:
DRAFT Process Overview
Inputs will come from a variety of sources; we will always get some reports from non-committers
who are sending emails, possibly to the wrong places. So ensuring PMCs know where to bubble up
trademark complaints will be important. Data tracked in any tool should be committer-private.
Anyone may submit issues to the tool (need to prevent mass spam), but non-committer submitters
should not be able to see issue progress once submitted.
For any project, any committer on that project could have access to the tracking tool and making comments, but usually only PMC members should be actually sending contact emails and updating the status of issues. Docs should be clear that committers should not discuss issues in public unless the PMC makes a specific request to do so - policing trademark misuse is best done privately and directly with the other party. In particular, we do not discuss details of the policing process with the original reporter unless we have a specific reason to do so.
Many requests will probably come in via email, so if preliminary evaluation clearly points to nominative use / not an issue, then we don't need to formally track it in a tool. But if there is any question within the PMC about if it's a problem, then we should track it, so that we can better capture the decision and reasons why it is/isn't a problem for future reference. Note that many requests will continue to come in via trademarks@, so having a tool that we can cleanly handoff evaluation and action from brand to the PMC is also valuable.
Data Security
Newly Reported Issue
Field Name | Description (bold = required) |
---|---|
ID | Like JIRA - project name/trademark and sequential number |
Submitter | Email to contact submitter; if is a committer just use their ID |
Submission | URL to original email if submitted via a mailing list |
Trademark | Specific Apache trademark being reported (dropdown of project names) |
URL | Specific URL where the trademark misuse is found |
Context | Copy/paste of paragraph or similar content that the misuse is found in (in case the URL later changes) |
IsLogo | Checkmark if this involves a graphical logo (defaults to no; project name) |
ContentOwner | Name of website owner (company, individual, if known at time, otherwise PMC should fill in for issues being addressed) |
OtherNotes | Text field for submitter to provide explanation of why they feel this is an issue; also if they see a pattern of misuses by the same organization elsewhere. |
Fields Added During Tracking
Field Name | Description (bold = required) |
---|---|
Status | As in JIRA - overall status in workflow |
Type | Type of issue - software product, services related to software, anything else (swag, etc.) |
Comments | List of comments added by any committer ID |
URLOther | List of URLs added by any committer ID (for showing other similar URLs) |
Waiting | Flag denoting we are waiting for a response from an outside party |
Responses | List of copy/paste responses from outside party, in case we want to keep record |
Explanation | Text field for Brand Management committee to fill in explaining why resolution was made (i.e. why this is/is not an issue) |
FAQURL | If this issue has been turned into a general .../marks/faq, URL to the answer for future reference |
Potential Request Workflow
Evaluated: policy violation not likely an infringement (waiting for PMC to make first contact)
Outside party has been contacted (waiting for their reply)
PMC has reviewed outside party has positively fixed the issue - Resolved
Outside party has responded negatively - Escalate to trademarks@
For more information about Apache marks, please see our formal Trademark
Policy or the site map of Apache Trademark Resources.
PMC members should also read the PMC Branding Responsibilities guide.
Nothing in this ASF policy statement shall be interpreted to allow any third party to claim any association with the Apache Software Foundation or any of its projects or to imply any approval or support by ASF for any third party products, services, or events.