osCommerce has been trademarked ™
Buy Gary A Beer?
Buying me a "beer" helps me to keep my contributions updated and keep this blog alive - and you get a link from my homepage to your site. Cheers!
On August 14th at 5 pm UK time the name 'osCommerce' became the registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd (owners and operators of the new osCommerce Project). It is not due for renewal until 2019.
This registration is valid within the United Kingdom, but it is also the only instance world-wide of a legally registered 'osCommerce' trademark. We are now entitled to be notified of any attempt by anyone else to register the name 'osCommerce' as a trademark elsewhere in the world.
This will allow us to proceed now to officially licence the use of our trademark, and ends the confusion over who is and is not entitled to legaly [sic] use the name osCommerce.
We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name "Club osCommerce".
Miss Rhea Anthony (a.k.a. Vger)
Managing Director
eCommerce Ventures Ltd
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2512693 for anyone who is interested.
Right lets get to the point. Do you know what will happen now if someone goes and modifies the osCommerce files, strips the original headers and instead adds Rhea's trademark link with the name of her company? He then re-uploads the package to the open source repository sites.
Given the documents floating around, someone will go to prison and ain't gonna be Harald.
Comment by enigma1 — August 18, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Hey enigma1 – I don't know, this sort of thing is way over my head, I am not a lawyer…
I suspect that Rhea will be along shortly to supply the answer.
Comment by Gary — August 18, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
enigma1, i can't really follow you can you please elaborate ?
Comment by Joop — August 18, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
I don't understand why anyone would want to destroy the oscommerce project by stealing its name in order to try to show people they own it, it's name or it's code or that they own the community. On the oscommerceproject their logo now shows an R within a circle indicating it is now a registered trademark… WTF is going on?!?!
This all seems a bit strange to me and I am very disappointed. The next thing eCommerce Ventures Ltd may even write to Harald asking him to remove oscommerce from his logo as he in breach of TM rules yet 'we' are the community and the community is 'us' so what is going on? What if all developers and coders/designers get legal threats for using the powered by oscommerce message in the footer without adding:
"oscommerce is a registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd". Really in that event the disclaimer should read:
"oscommerce is a registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd but the site you are visiting is made using oscommerce which was around years before eCommerce Ventures Ltd registered the name oscommerce. The oscommerce code is available from http://www.oscommerce.com and is GPL which means oscommerce can be freely distributed and edited but the oscommerce trademark belongs to eCommerce Ventures Ltd who require you to seek their permission before using their UK registered trademark called oscommerce which may be extended to other countries"
In short, I agree with the views of most people expressed in clubosc and elsewhere: Vger and her company really should have made things easier by advertising her company as one that uses oscommerce as a base for its coding but in essence has a fork called ReadyCart (TM or R within a circle).
It seems they are using and stealing the oscommerce name driven by greed and money, so by registering it as a TM is really a big fat slap in the face of all community members, I can see no justification for Vger to take this course of action, I think only someone with a strong hatred for Harald could have done all this but it is the oscommerce forum and it's members that will ultimiately be TotallyFooked along with the brand name
Anyone can easily have set up a company called eCommerce Vultures Ltd and provide an oscommerce based fork/store which was a registered trademark called 'ReadyCart'. I think too many people will be disillusioned with Vger now.
Is this part of the reason why fwrmedia left their team?
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 18, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Probably one of many to follow !
Hi Joop,
It probably won't come as a surprise to you, after your posting at the
address below, that you are banned from our forums:
http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/news/news/article.php/3835046
with kind regards,
Rhea Anthony
Vger
Comment by Joop — August 19, 2009 @ 6:25 am
According to the IPO webiste any TradeMark can be appealed and then withdrawn from the person/company it was issued to IF a case can be made to prove someone has infringed on someone elses use of a name (and may have been done in bad form), in the case the oscommerce (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle) name and Harald/oscommerce community!
This is what it clearly states:
"Once a trade mark has been registered there are several different forms of legal action you can take to challenge it.
Legal costs
Cost awards in proceedings before us are contributory, not compensatory.
This means that the cost award is not going to cover all the costs of the proceedings and will only provide a contribution towards the costs of the "winning" party.
We use a published scale of costs and have discretion to determine the level of the award.
For further information on cost awards in proceedings please see Tribunal Practice Notices 4/2007 and 6/2008 in our professional section.
If you decide to withdraw your application after we have received an opposition you will have to pay costs to the opponent. However, if you have demonstrated that proceedings were launched against you with no warning, giving you no chance to negotiate or reach a compromise without legal proceedings then there will be no award of costs issued against you.
If you decide to defend your application against the opposition and lose the case, you will be required to pay costs to the opponent.
If you are successful in defending your application you are unlikely to recover all your costs as any award we make is normally based on a set scale"
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-object.htm
So—–What you say we all get together and file a complaint or go a step further by first listing the people who will complian and then agreeing a date and time for all of us to submit our case together. eCommerce Ventures Ltd can not be in a position to financially fight off everyone
How about we all get together and save oscommerce (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle). We can all make an application to make sure that AFTER our win we will allow the oscommerce trademark to belong to the community and its members which really means Harald. Don't get me wrong, Haralds mismanagement of oscommerce has been a major factor in what Vger is doing but I prefer the oscommerce name be with Harald and the community rather than Vger and eCommerce Ventures Ltd
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 19, 2009 @ 10:52 am
I am in.
Online pposition through IPO doesn't work,
The current status of this trade mark does not allow you to file an opposition.
Comment by Joop — August 19, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Anyone can apply to challenge a TradeMark once it has been issued: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-object/t-afterreg/t-afterreg-intervention.htm
I may use an oscommerce (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle) website to see how many people are willing to register their opposition to eCommerce Ventures Ltd applying for the oscommerce name and then when the time is right they will all be sent out an email stating a date and time to submit their individual case for opposition.
Any ideas on how to proceed will be appreciated
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 19, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Haralds Blog on this matter:
http://blogs.oscommerce.com/2009/08/19/the-registration-of-the-oscommerce-trademark-in-the-uk/
I'd suggest that anyone considering opposition to the TM status should liaise with Harald…at least to see the lay of the land.
Comment by Gary — August 19, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
"I'd suggest that anyone considering opposition to the TM"
Opposition to the TM? Honestly I don't see a debate about this scam. Someone comes along steals or attempt to steal the osCommerce copyright that's about it.
Anyone implicated, bears responsibility and that does not exclude or give an excuse to the UK IPO or whoever posts this as "news" and promotes this scam.
"enigma1, i can't really follow you can you please elaborate ?"
which part to elaborate on? What I mentioned already happened in part, here is an example, just see the copyright headers:
http://forums.oscommerce.com/index.php?showtopic=335822&view=findpost&p=1399354
Comment by enigma1 — August 19, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
This what Vgers website shows in the footer:
Copyright © 2009 The osCommerce Project.
Owned and operated by eCommerce Ventures Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. Company Registration Number: 6833607
the name osCommerce is the Registered Trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd within the United Kingdom, Registration Number: 2512693. Unauthorised use prohibited.
What a shame she has resorted to this
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 19, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-object/t-afterreg/t-afterreg-invalid.htm
Invalidation
Invalidation is the legal procedure that allows anyone to try and remove a registered trade mark from our register. You may apply to remove the entire registration, or only some of the goods or services it covers.
If you start invalidation proceedings, you become the 'applicant’ in the case.
The main reasons why you may want to invalidate, or partly invalidate, the registration of a trade mark are:
you think the trade mark is one which is not unique to the proprietor and should be free for you (or anyone) in that line of trade to use; or
you own a trade mark (which does not have to be registered itself) which is the same as, or similar to, the proprietor’s trade mark.
==So it seems hopefully soon a few of us will get together and pay £200 to get the ball rolling on behalf of the oscommerce community (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle)
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 19, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
@ Gary "I suspect that Rhea will be along shortly to supply the answer."
There's a lot of comment here about the IPO and its procedures etc, with some very partial extracts from their website. So let's get down to it:
1. Yes, an appeal can be lodged against an existing trademark, but only after a legal appeal has been lodged can others jump into with free objections tagged onto the legal appeal.
2. Yes, starting an arbitrated appeal only costs £200 plus tax. They advise that the parties concerned try to resolve their differences before hand. Each party must agree to meet the costs awarded against them if it is to proceed. They do say that the costs are "normally" only partial costs, but also advise that these "partial costs" can still run into thousands of pounds.
3. So, for instance, if there were a legal appeal against our trademark and we lose we may have to pay a couple of thousand towards the legal costs of the winner. But I have no idea what the full legal costs of the winner in mounting the challenge would be.
4. Before anyone gets too wound up with this I advise that they take a look at the casework of the appeals against registered marks, as we have. They're all available on the IPO website.
Harald has already said he is taking legal counsel on this, so my advice to people on the sidelines is to let him get on with that.
I previously said in response to a post by Peter Bernard, when he said he'd bunged off an email objecting to the application, that "this isn't kids stuff", and I stick by that.
I have no doubt that there were many objections lodged to the original application (at least that's what our opponents said) and they were obviously considered but disregarded by the IPO.
If there is a legal post-registration appeal and it goes against us then so be it – that's the law and we will just have to abide by it.
Vger
Comment by Vger — August 20, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Vger said
1. Yes, an appeal can be lodged against an existing trademark, but only after a legal appeal has been lodged can others jump into with free objections tagged onto the legal appeal.
And this is where the oscommerce community will jump in and lodge free complaints against eCommerce Ventures Ltd registering the oscommerce trademark.
Vger said
2. Yes, starting an arbitrated appeal only costs £200 plus tax. They advise that the parties concerned try to resolve their differences before hand. Each party must agree to meet the costs awarded against them if it is to proceed. They do say that the costs are "normally" only partial costs, but also advise that these "partial costs" can still run into thousands of pounds.
Each party does not 'have' to agree to meet the others costs. After the community lodge their complaints the IPO will swiftly resolve the matter with minimal legal costs anyway.
Vger said
3. So, for instance, if there were a legal appeal against our trademark and we lose we may have to pay a couple of thousand towards the legal costs of the winner. But I have no idea what the full legal costs of the winner in mounting the challenge would be.
I think once the IPO give a quick end to this matter and give the oscommerce name to Harald your company may be open to other litigation by Harald and the oscommerce team for it seems according to some people you have tried to show that the oscommerce name and intellectual property belongs to you.
You thought you would control the use of the name oscommerce? You thought you would licence its use to selected partners and assocaites? You will do no such thing when hundreds of people jump in and back up Harald with fee free applications against your company.
You can still walk away from this with some good will, just approach someone who talks to both you and Harald and make arrangements to have the trademark registered to him and stop using the name 'oscommerceproject' and instead use ReadyCart and register that as your trademark and domain. Please think about it for the community, I don't have much time for Harald because without a doubt he has played a major role in the non progression of oscommerce but please just think about being humble and end this sad little episode and start afresh with your oscommerce based fork called ReadyCart.
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 20, 2009 @ 9:25 am
This is an absolute disgrace and as a user of oscommerce for many years i will be watching this closely and will be more than happy to chuck in a few quid to Harald if and when he needs it to defend the oscommerce name as well as lodging a complaint when it becomes available.
It's a shame that some people think they can get away with stealing from other people, and basically rip the entire community at large off…
Comment by Eddy — August 20, 2009 @ 11:59 am
"Each party does not 'have' to agree to meet the others costs. After the community lodge their complaints the IPO will swiftly resolve the matter with minimal legal costs anyway."
You obviously haven't read the site like we have. Both sides in the legal arguement to have to agree to costs if they lose. They do advise that even "partial costs" can run into thousands of pounds.
True – those who complain in support of a legal appeal wouldn't be bound for costs – but I'm not talking about them.
Vger
Comment by Vger — August 20, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
Eddie said:
This is an absolute disgrace and as a user of oscommerce for many years i will be watching this closely and will be more than happy to chuck in a few quid to Harald if and when he needs it to defend the oscommerce name as well as lodging a complaint when it becomes available.
It's a shame that some people think they can get away with stealing from other people, and basically rip the entire community at large off…
You are right there will will be plenty of people willing to part with a few quid to fight for the cause. The more I see and read on this topic the more disgusted I become.
Vger can still walk away from this with some good will, she needs approach someone who talks to both her and Harald and make arrangements to have the trademark registered to Harald and she should stop using the name 'oscommerceproject' and instead use 'ReadyCart' and register that as her trademark and domain. Vger should start afresh with herr oscommerce based fork called ReadyCart.
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 20, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
So has Vger lots of pennies to take everyone to court over misuse of her "trademark" and will the courts agree with her that the trademark is valid having been registered errrr…… how many years after the term osCommerce was first coined??
It's one thing to ™ but quite another very expensive thing to keep it exclusive
Just remember the Beatles lost a very expensive case over Apple with Apple Mac
Comment by Xpajun — August 20, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
Vger
I have to say I'm totally shocked. I have traded knowledge with you on a few instances in the past, through the OSC forums and you seem a decent, intelligent person. No doubt you have grown a lot through your (free and unhindered) use of OSC, as I have and many thousands of others too….
So – why the heck are you doing this? It doesn't make sense!
Is it purely the commercial aspect that motivates you?
I agree with the above commentators and appeal to your better judgement that you end this amicably, if not for yourself, then for the sake of so many, many people in the community, for the integrity of the GNU and Open Source concept, and for this iconic product.
If you choose to continue with this madness, I'll be ready – along with so many others, to get my chequebook out and support Harald and OSC to defeat you.
Don't underestimate the loyalty you're up against.
Comment by Sol — August 21, 2009 @ 3:05 am
Vger should apologise to the oscommerce community for her actions and â„¢ ReadyCart.
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 21, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Hi All..
Just a small update. Our legal counsel have been busy and have reviewed an unexpected proposition provided by eCommerce Ventures Ltd. More information will be provided in due course.
Kind regards,
An 'unexpected proposal' worth reviewing ?
The only proposal should be to give the name 'oscommerce' back to the community which is deffending it.
Comment by Joop — August 21, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
This one is just plain funny, Vger crying that somebody stole the name 'osQuantum' and registered it at sourceforge.
Her post from the oscommerceproject website
'Some time ago we announced that the name of the new cart we are building would be "osQuantum". Following that announcement a supporter of the old project – Peter Bernard a.k.a. "Java Roasters" and "abcommerce" – registered a fake project under that name on Source Forge. Presumably this was to prevent us from registering it there.
Source Forge upheld our complaint and stripped Peter Bernard of his fake project. We have now registered osQuantum for our use on Source Forge.
Either close to the time of our 1st Alpha Release, or at the time of the 1st Alpha Release, we will make our code available from Source Forge and other locations.
Vger'
Comment by Joop — August 21, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Vger is always a good laugh, she cracks me up. An amusing interlude to my day but now I must get back to work.
Comment by Java Roasters — August 21, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
@javaroasters
Vger was a good member of oscommerce, I dont understand why she would try to destroy oscommerce by partioning it. It seems it was done for making money as well as getting her own back at Harald. As for you making mischief at sourceforge, does she have any proof because she is hardly the most honest person after what she did with oscommerce TM
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 21, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
Peter Bernard (Java Roasters and abcommerce) did contact me to accuse me, once again, of lying. He said that we has not complained about his fake 'osQuantum' project to Source Forge and that he had given it back to us because not holding it was causing problems for us (as if anyone would believe that with his record of opposition to us).
No doubt you won't believe us, but perhaps you'll believe Source Forge, who said:
"We've reviewed your complaint and have removed the 'osquantum' project (registered by the 'abcommerce' user) from SourceForge.net today. This namespace is now free for you to use in registering a presence on SourceForge.net
Thank you for bringing this to our attention."
Vger
Comment by Vger — August 22, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Vger is always a good laugh, she cracks me up. An amusing interlude to my day but now I must get back to work.
Comment by Java Roasters — August 22, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Vger has lost all credibility since starting this madness, she will never be able to build up that respect and reputation again. Its a shame really but she can still do a good deed and save herself from an even bigger oscommerce backlash by accepting what she did was wrong and owning up to it and asking for the oscommerce team and community to forgive her.
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 22, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
@javasroasters
She is still good for a laugh and for even better laughs!
———————————————————-
By Vger August 23 2009 1:20 PMPDT
The address at Source Forge of the real osQuantum:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/osquantum/
The earlier poster is just another of those trying to disrupt our work – and failing as always. Extremely childish, but that's all we've come to expect from them, infantile beyond words.
Vger
Comment by Joop — August 23, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Looks like shes going to hand over the trader mark in a couple of days. Who can believe her and trust her from now on?
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 24, 2009 @ 12:59 am
osQuantum is registered at Source Forge simply because the 1st Alpha release of the new cart will be made available for download from there and at other locations.
This has absolutely nothing to do with our osCommerce trademark. There's obviously some wishful thinking taking place on your part.
Vger
Comment by Vger — August 24, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
@ Vger
I for one wish you the best with osQuantum, I am still unsure exactly what your source code is or will be – is it based on oscommerce and is a fork? Or is it a completely different piece of unique coding you and your team created?
I do wish you success with osQuantum however I also wish this IPO problem can be dealt with without further delay.
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 24, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
You already have her answer,
'There's obviously some wishful thinking taking place on your part.'
Comment by Joop — August 24, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
osQuanum is totally new software, with not a line of osCommerce coding in it. It uses the Kohana framework, uses MVC architecture and is pure PHP 5 OOP.
You can use any type of database – MySQL, Postgre SQL, MS SQL etc.
You can use any type of template engine – your choice.
The first Alpha release is due out by end of January – which is not that far away now.
Vger
Comment by Vger — August 24, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Vger and crew (lets not forget the rest of the scoundrels!) have committed numerous offences under UK law, may of them criminal. Many of these can be pursued by private individuals or groups, essentially anybody who is affected.
I made an interesting post here, which is probably a good place to start:
http://newoscommerceproject.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4
Matti
Comment by Matti Ressler — August 25, 2009 @ 5:40 am
"osQuanum [sic] is totally new software, with not a line of osCommerce coding in it."
If this is truly the case, why on earth have you started a "turf war" over the name osCommerce?
Comment by Gary — August 27, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
@Gary РIt has been postulated by a few that osQuanum has just been a diversion from the true intentions of Ecommerce Ventures Ltd while they continued on with what they thought would be the coup de gr̢ce of their narrow minded plot to take over osCommerce.
As far as anybody can tell, no code whatsoever exists for this imaginary cart other than the Kohana framework (a bad choice IMO). From a business perspective, they have already shot themselves in the foot and many will be reluctant to touch anything they produce (if they ever do) with a barge pole (they are now actually missing a foot altogether, blew it right off with a cannon!).
I hope that Harald and his team of lawyers pursue this to the full extent of the law. Criminals are criminals and I see no reason whatsoever to extend mercy to them, other than the money factor that always comes into play when reaching a settlement. This is certainly very good leverage in that respect.
Matthijs van der Vegte just posted some of his latest thoughts on his blog: http://www.matthijs.org/vger_fail
Comment by Matti Ressler — August 28, 2009 @ 1:33 am
@Matti
I clicked the link, it was an amazing article written by Matthijs van der Vegte.
Apparantly it seems Vger tried to buy the oscommerce domain from him too and then said she could have used a similar domain to start her own project but was offering him a chance to sell up.
What on earth has gone wrong with that woman? Like the article states, she has lost all credibility even amongst those who have no time Harald. This is a real shame because once upon a time she was an oscommerce rock but she was no more or less disillusioned with Harald than you and I so what gave her the right to save or steal oscommerce and say she was doing it for the best of the community?
I think Harald will first manage to get the oscommerce name transferred to him and then he will (or at least should) start legal proceedings for the detriment caused to him, the community and oscommerce and the fact that is seems blatant theft and financial motivation was the driving force behind ecommerce ventured limited attempts to 'own' oscommerce.
If ecommerce ventures limited is sued by Harald they will have to settle out of court with Harald for the sake of saving barrister and solicitors fees but either way that effectively means the end of ecommerce ventures limited. All Vger had to do was call her project a fork and that would have been it, but she modified copyright headers in her version of RC2 and went on what seems to most as 'on the rampage'.
I hope she realises the damage she has done to the community even though inadvertantly she has unified everyone inthe community against her, including the anti-Harald brigade.
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 28, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
To be honest i am still not really pro-Harald.
I think he did leave the community dangling for too long.
But at least to my knowledge he didn't try to steal anything from others or tried to make the community efforts sound as his own.
So not really pro-Harald but anti-anti-anti-Rhea for sure.
Comment by Joop — August 28, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
7. On the 20th August we put forward a set of proposals to Mr Ponce de Leon which we hoped would resolve the situation without legal recourse. It appears that he had already by that date appointed Beck Greener as his legal counsel. Beck Greener is a UK based law firm specialising in Trademark and IP Litigation.
She should put her hands up and own up to what she is doing! Instead she is trying to make a defence and it looks really bad
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 28, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
With regard to the allegations of breaching copyright.
On the old osCommerce project website there is a statement that the Shop Front copyright can either be removed or modified.
On the admin side of v2.0 it still says 'copyright osCommerce'. It is also a link and it is true that the link takes people to our site, but that has nothing to do with the copyright text. It is there so that people get support in the right place. There is code in v2.0 which was never released as an add-on on the old projects' website, so for people to look for support there would get the same response as requests there for support for CRE Loaded (they would be told to go elsewhere).
With regard to any allegation of trademark violation – we hold a legal verifiable trademark. Our application went legally unchallenged over an "Opposition Period" of two months (although known about during the whole of that period and before).
Vger
Comment by Vger — August 29, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
I find your stance on this disturbing Vger.
The example on your website about trademarks is not fair is it? Why go make comparisons about trademarks and so on? If for example your company registers the name Rolls Royce is a country where the Rolls Royce owners have not registered the trademark then it is a dubious move on your part. And if you register the name and then sell cars with the Rolls Royce badge on it and even write to companies selling and repairing Roll Royce vehicles regarding litigation then you have to be prepared for a backlash. What may be legally allowed does not make it morally or ethically correct and it is just a matter of time before the name is withdrawn from your company so why not make a deal with Harald beforehand?
At the end of the day it is without question that you will have the oscommerce name removed for your company ownership and it will go to Harald, this is a fact beyond doubt. All that remains to be seen is 'when' this will happen.
Please settle with Harald without impractical conditions such as sharing the name etc. Please let it go and call your project something else and call it a fork because it is the best way for all parties and the community to move on.
Think about it please.
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 30, 2009 @ 12:04 am
@Vger
Is this the opinion of your so called "specialist Trademark and IP Litigators"? I doubt it very much, since your remarks defy plain logic.
Let me tell you from experience. Magistrates are definitely not the fools you seem to think the rest of the World are. When they see that you have trademarked osCommerce with the sole purpose of trying to exercise the rights that belong to the true osCommerce (just ask Gary, since you targeted him right away)and have as well altered the copyright notices in such a way as to lead reasonable people to think that your establishment IS osCommerce, they will very quickly rule that you have breached copyright. They will also rule that you are in dire breach of the Trade Descriptions Act, which is a criminal offense in the UK, plus other numerous breaches of trademark and copyright acts in the UK.
Yes Vger, you do currently hold a trademark, however one which you have obtained unlawfully. I suggest that you take a look at your own country's trademark laws, which have clear provisions and penalties for people like you who abuse the system.
You do not hold a LEGAL trademark, this you will find out in due course. What you have was obtained by deception, omission and in a predatory way which your trademark laws describe as "bad faith".
Comment by Matti Ressler — August 30, 2009 @ 4:14 am
Quote Vger:
"On the old osCommerce project website there is a statement that the Shop Front copyright can either be removed or modified."
Yes, it can be removed altogether or modified, for example: Copyright (c) 2009 MyWebsite.com
It certainly cannot be modified in such a way as to make people believe that YOU and your company are "osCommerce". It is an interactive copyright notice which identifies the site copyright holder. By default, it identifies osCommerce and their website. The way you have it, it identifies YOU as "osCommerce", which you are not and never will be.
Quote Vger:
"On the admin side of v2.0 it still says 'copyright osCommerce'. It is also a link and it is true that the link takes people to our site, but that has nothing to do with the copyright text."
It has everything to do with the copyright text. The original text in the admin footer is EXPLICIT, as is the advice given regarding it on the osCommerce website.
/*
The following copyright announcement is in compliance
to section 2c of the GNU General Public License, and
can not be removed, or can only be modified
appropriately with additional copyright notices.
For more information please read the osCommerce
Copyright Policy at:
http://www.oscommerce.com/about/copyright
This comment must be left intact together with the
copyright announcement.
*/
(emphasis mine)
I certainly understand the meaning of "can only be modified
appropriately with additional copyright notices". I also understand the meaning of "intact". You clearly don't…. yes, you do, you just pretend it is not there. Let me educate you, "intact" means that you cannot modify it in any way whatsoever. To be "modified appropriately with additional copyright notices means exactly that! Don't touch the osCommerce copyright motice, however feel free to append your own if you have made modifications.
You even went so far as to change the above URL to a page that does not even exist on your site!
The "support site" link in the osCommerce admin is in the header.
You will have a VERY difficult time arguing to an educated magistrate that a link contained in a copyright notice is insignificant.
Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off
Comment by Matti Ressler — August 31, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Matti you certainly did your research
Comment by TotallyFooked — August 31, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
@TotallyFooked
My wife is a lawyer specializing in commercial law… she tells me what to look for
(contact me)
Matti
Comment by Matti Ressler — September 1, 2009 @ 1:52 am
http://forums.oscommerce.com/index.php?showtopic=343573
The emails sent out to people by Vger are really indicative of what she has become. It's sad to see her fall from grace.
Comment by TotallyFooked — September 2, 2009 @ 2:11 am
Yes, the *Evil Plot* in all it's glory (puke).
These very unprofessional and misspelled letters serve only to further strengthen the position of the true osCommerce in any legal action.
Vger fell from grace a long time ago… no more feeling sad, since everybody has told her right from wrong. Personally, I would hit as hard as possible, no mercy.
Comment by Matti Ressler — September 2, 2009 @ 4:33 am
I find it amazing that she actually sent those emails especially to the corporate oscommerce sponsor. What has gone wrong with that woman. Surely if osQuantum is going to be all new code and a state of the art shopping cart why does she insist on trying to make oscommerce hers? Anyone else would try and find a way out and settle with Harald out of IPO and out of court but she is still fighting what is surely a lost cause for herself.
Comment by TotallyFooked — September 2, 2009 @ 5:50 am
From Tony Blacker's (Director of Ecommerce Ventures Ltd.) LinkedIn profile:
"The new project aims to take osCommerce into the php5 era with a brand new platform"
That is to say that "osQuantum" was only a ruse to try and shut people up. Control of the name "osCommerce" is their ultimate goal, along with the "brand awareness that osCommerce has" (quote Vger).
These kind of public statements by directors of Ecommerce Ventures Ltd will be their ultimate undoing. That is to say, their motivation is a clear intention to steal the goodwill that people associate with "osCommerce".
Comment by Matti Ressler — September 2, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
The more I read about Vger and her comments the more I am disgusted with her.
Comment by TotallyFooked — September 2, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
I notice that another Ecommerce Ventures Ltd. director, William Langford, has silently slipped from their Team Page:
http://oscommerceproject.org/team.html
Note, this was their head of development.
Comment by Matti Ressler — September 3, 2009 @ 12:30 am
Interesting that Will Langford doesn't appear to be part of that project anymore. I'm still quite bothered by the fact that Gary Walker (GLCustoms) and John Oligario (Mibble) and Monika Mathe are involved – knowing these from the old forums I always thought of them as supporters of Open Source – obviously, never take people at face value! If they got out now, they could save their reputation I think. I don't know anything of Thomas Hodges-Hoyland as he was never really an important player at the old forum.
It's interesting, isn't it, that ALL of the other members of that project are silent. That in itself, screams "what a fsck up".
Comment by Gary — September 3, 2009 @ 6:10 am
Some news of Monike Mathe.
Having had cancer myself, I know just how tough a time this is for her.
If YOU are the one(s) who are contacting her clients, please STOP immediately – it's not fair on Monika's clients or on Monika herself. You also let yourself down, badly – it's not the actions of people who are fighting for Open Source ethos.
Comment by Gary — September 3, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
I am sorry to hear this about Monika.
And of course on a personal level i do whish Monika strength in these difficult times and whish her well.
Comment by Joop — September 3, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
My thoughts to go out to Monika, and I hope people take note of Gary's comment regarding petty groups 'taking the law into their own hands.'
However I do have to say that I find it incredible that vger is making an issue of this. The amount of hypocrisy that requires is amazing.
In fact it is slightly sickening, vger herself is playing on Monika's problems as much as those stupid people who have decided to contact her customers.
Comment by Anonymous — September 3, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
I think it is important to take a step back from the core issue which is what many see as disgusting behaviour by Vger by registering and then (what seems to be) trying to control the oscommerce name (trademark) in the UK with possible expansion under the Madrid Protocol.
Yes Vger's action are disgusting and in the end (very soon) her company will lose the trademark and Harald will have it, she will still at this late stage try and walk away from this with some kind of face or pride but forget her for a moment and forget her intentions.
Without a doubt I am sure someone with the sound frame of mind like Monika would never have signed up to Vger's pet project if she knew the furore that registering the trademark was going to bring. This could maybe be the reason why Robert Fisher (fwrmedia) resigned. I am sure we only get trickles of information that Vger wants us to know.
I wish Monika good health. I hope her treatments bring her relief and a swift recovery, I would not wish any illnesses on anyone. I hope she can focus on getting through her treatments and considering her situation give oscommerce and all related projects a miss. Whoever is contacting Monika's clients may be doing it without malice just to bring to her clients attention that she is associated with a company that seems to be trying to steal oscommerce but under the current cloud of her illness this needs to stop immediately please because Monika must be going through so much stress and fear with the cancer.
It is not appropriate to mention Monika or any of the other people associated with the fork project that Vger created. It is obvious Vger is the ring leader and I blame her for the whole mess. Surely even her 'team' can see that if her project is described as a fork and is not using/passing off the name 'oscommerce' and is called osQuantum or alike and admits it was wrong to register oscommerce as a trademark then surely no one associated with oscommerce will have any ill-feelings to ecommerce ventures on the contrary most people will wish them success on their venture.
I hope Monika gets well soon.
Comment by TotallyFooked — September 3, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
'and admits it was wrong to register oscommerce as a trademark then surely no one associated with oscommerce will have any ill-feelings to ecommerce ventures on the contrary most people will wish them success on their venture.'
Don't you think it's a little bit late for that ?
It started with the name 'oscommerceproject' which already had a lot of resistance.
They had to wise up and leave the name 'oscommerce' allone but instead they trademarked it.
You say 'it's only Vger' but i disagree, it is everybody who didn't leave the project as soon as the name was illegally trademarked.
Don't you wonder why there still isn't any osQuantum forum and why they still insist on keeping the TM on there site evenso they know that in the unlikely event that the are granted the right to keep the TM it will be the dead of oscommerce as we know.
Comment by Joop — September 4, 2009 @ 7:35 am
"It is not appropriate to mention Monika or any of the other people associated with the fork project that Vger created. It is obvious Vger is the ring leader and I blame her for the whole mess."
I disagree – I hold the whole "team" responsible equally.
Comment by Gary — September 4, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
I am very saddened to hear of Monika's illness and along with everybody else pray for her speedy recovery.
As Gary notes, Ecommerce Ventures Ltd. are a company and a "team" and as such all are equally responsible. If somebody wishes to mitigate their responsibility, they should step down, as a number have already done (this does not necessarily remove liability).
Comment by Matti Ressler — September 4, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
I was under the impression that the 'team' were originally making a fork using the 'oscanswers' name and then somehow deviated away from that and began a mission to what clearly seems on stealing the oscommerce brand. It is this perceived theft that I am talking about, yes they all were part of the team but there was in all probability only one person pulling strings and that was Vger.
Comment by TotallyFooked — September 4, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
@TotallyFooked.
If you have a read of this thread (whats left of it!), you will clearly see that "pulling strings" was not solely limited to Vger: http://forums.oscommerceproject.org/index.php?showtopic=763
They were all involved and had "team meetings" to confirm their directions.
Many years ago one of my nephews misbehaved badly and when his father scolded him he exclaimed "I didn't know that I did it!". That is ok for children, but not for adults.
Comment by Matti Ressler — September 4, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
I am talking about, yes they all were part of the team but there was in all probability only one person pulling strings and that was Vger.
Some still ARE part or even recently joined the team.
They are all well thinking people and even if Vger is pulling the (illegal) strings you disagree and walk away or you agree and stay or join.
Vger probably did promised them large profits if they could steal the name oscommerce but they could have said 'No thank you'.
Comment by