Re: Claims of Conformance

From: Asmus Freytag <>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:32:23 -0700

On 7/26/2012 4:42 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 4:20 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> Perhaps I've read too much into
>> . The implication is
>> that untrue or misleading claims using the word 'Unicode' are
>> contravening the trademark.
> That's more on the level of making sure that when you use the "Unicode
> Mark"
> mark, you are actually referring to the Unicode Standard, the Unicode
> Consortium,
> and so on.
> You cannot slap the Unicode Mark on a self-publication of UTF-37 with
> your
> own idiosyncratic code tables and call that "Unicode". *That* would be
> a violation
> of the trademark.
> It is a whole nother kettle of fish when somebody says of their product
> "This product conforms to the Unicode Standard, Version 6.2.0." There
> would be nothing misleading about their use of the Unicode Mark in
> such a case -- they are actually referring to the actual standard which
> claims the trademark. The reference is not misleading.
> But the *claim* of conformance could be false, if their product is
> examined
> in detail. (Or tested, or reverse engineered, or whatever.) And *that*
> is the part that the Unicode Consortium has neither the personnel nor
> the inclination to be chasing after. The Consortium cannot police such
> claims, especially for a standard as widely implemented as this one.
> The same would apply to claims of conformance to the other standards,
> such as UCA, LDML, Unicode Regex, and so on.
> --Ken
However, such a misleading claim might subject someone to civil suit,
don't you think?

Received on Thu Jul 26 2012 - 19:34:01 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jul 26 2012 - 19:34:01 CDT