On 11/28/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/11/05, Scott Keir <scottkeir(a)yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
I'm sorry I couldn't be there yesterday -
please could those who were
there explain a bit more what the issue is/was with incorporating as
"Wikimedia UK", as it is not clear to me from what's posted to date
what the issues is/are. Otherwise we might suggest alternatives that
fall prey to the same trap!
Basically, we want to trade (operate) as Wikimedia UK. However, we
want to do so /by permission of the Foundation/ - they hold the name,
and so we probably need their permission to avoid nasty legal tangles.
We can't incorporate as Wikimedia UK, though, because:
a) the Foundation can't grant permission to use the name until the
company exists
b) if someone takes over the company later, by whatever means, we want
the Foundation to be able to stop them using the Wikimedia name.
Yes, but I still don't get it. Are there, apart from this twist (a)
that we have not resolved (which of the chicken or the egg...) any
other /legal/ reasons why the company cannot be called Wikimedia UK?
Because we could agree that the agreement to use the name be signed on
the same day as the Company is founded for example, or signed between
the founders of Wikimedia UK and the Foundation, to be carried on to
the organisation etc. There are many ways to do that I am sure.
OK for b), although I believe that is a double edge thing. If the
company Tralala (since it's not Wikimedia UK ;-) ) is taken over, and
they're in trade/partnership/whatever with someone/a company/an
organisation, it seems harder to me for the Wikimedia Foundation to
claim anything from this company. Whereas being able to take the name
away makes it harder for Tralala to continue any trade in the name of
the Wikisomethingorother.
So I ask my question again, are there any other legal implications
that I might not be aware of that *really* prevent the company from
being called Wikimedia UK?
Cheers,
Delphine
--
~notafish