[Perl] Logo and T-shirts for perl.org.il

Uri Bruck bruck at actcom.net.il
Sun Nov 3 15:20:08 PST 2002

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Gaal Yahas wrote:

> Well, that's pretty darn amazing. I don't know how trademark laws work,
> but if the following is legally sound as well as O'Reilly's position--
> OR> Q: Do you just own the particular Camel on the cover of Programming
> OR> Perl, or all camels?
> OR> 
> OR> A: We don't own any particular camel images. We own the _association_
> OR> between camels (yes, all of them) and the Perl language. We know that
> OR> sounds pretty sweeping, but it really has to be that way. If someone
> OR> were to use a different camel on their Perl book, there would be
> OR> confusion over which one "The Camel Book" referred to. That's how
> OR> trademarks work, helping to protect confusion in the marketplace. 
> (<http://perl.oreilly.com/usage/faq.html>)
> --then the law is preposterous. How can anybody own an association?

When a trademark is registered it needs to be registered within some 
context. They can't register the camel as a universal trademark, they can 
only register it as a trademark within the context of Perl programming. 
Another company registered the camel in the context of smoking years ago.
Every trademark is an association between the trademark and a type of 
product. That's a restriction on trademarks. If a trademark was not 
associated with anything, then it would be universal, and that would be 



More information about the Perl mailing list