This is an automated archive.

The original was posted on /r/dogecoin by /u/GoodShibe on 2023-10-18 17:50:57+00:00.

Hi there. If you don’t know me, I’m GoodShibe.

I’ve been here a while and I love this community.

I apologize for the jarring headline but my previous attempt at engaging with my fellow Shibes didn’t really work. To that end I am, again, attempting to start an open, long-form discussion which I feel is worth the Dogecoin community’s attention; doing so in a way that does not intend to spread fear, uncertainty or doubt – and does not cause a pile-on or flame war – but does highlight what appear to be current realities that have come into focus for myself as of late… which have lead me to extrapolate.

I am sure that there are more points that I’ve missed and also more nuance to many of the points that are included, which I hope will come out in a fair, adult, community discussion with everyone involved. If I have forgotten to include something, it is likely an oversight and not intentional.

I also apologize that while I am trying to articulate these points as dispassionately as possible I am passionate about this cause and having this discussion so some of that will likely slip through. I know that we Shibes would rather be silly but, IMHO, part of the freedom to be silly comes from working together to handle our adult business when it arises.

Stating it clearly, this is my goal:

To have an open, community-wide discussion about Dogecoin trademarks, the process that is already in motion and potential solutions to legitimate, valid concerns that arise from these endeavors and the way that they have been carried out.

If you love and/or use Dogecoin, what is happening will affect you and you deserve to be fully informed and to have a chance to have your opinion heard.

What is a Trademark? (The whole thing is worth reading)

“A trademark can be more than just an organization’s logo or name. In fact, a nonprofit can create numerous trademarks as it grows and evolves. In simplified terms, a trademark is a word, phrase, drawing, or combination of these things that is used in commerce to identify the source of goods or services. These terms should be understood in the broadest sense: “commerce” encompasses a nonprofit’s fundraising and service work, for example.”

Dogecoin.com also has a section on trademarks that is worth reading.

Facts - The Good

  1. “Dogecoin” is an almost decade-old, community-run project made possible through hundreds, if not thousands of people working mostly for free, in good faith.
  2. Jens, the primary mover of the latest iteration of the Dogecoin Foundation and a director in several companies working to own Dogecoin trademarks, has a long history in the community of pushing back against bad-faith trademarks.
  3. I have, in the past, whole-heartedly supported Jens in his efforts to push back against bad faith trademarks and encouraged others to do the same. However, the important context is that it was not in trying to secure Dogecoin trademarks.
  4. There have been and currently are bad-faith trademarking attempts of Dogecoin around the world. For example. The Foundation is currently set up to push back against these attempts but it has, successfully, pushed back against bad-faith trademark attempts long before trademarks were on the table. Trademarking Dogecoin, by Jens’ claim, makes pushing back ‘easier’ for the Foundation.
  5. Tim and Jens of the Dogecoin Foundation have both told me that Much Wow LTD and Madeupnumbers LTD UK (which I’ll get into below) are the UK version of non-profit companies that have very specific limitations on them.

Facts - The Concerning

  1. Holding a Trademark does little to deter the unscrupulous in action and, in fact, it may actually work as a deterrent to those who might want to, say, do cross-branding work with Dogecoin and are legitimately trying to follow the law (not worth the effort or unable to get a license, etc).
  2. On their website and X/Twitter account, the Dogecoin Foundation openly states that it is operating as a Not-For-Profit – not a Non-Profit, which is an important distinction.
  3. Their website also says that the Dogecoin Foundation is operating under 5 separate businesses in three different parts of the world. So whose rules are they actually operating the Dogecoin Foundation under?
  4. The Dogecoin Foundation Inc., a US-based company, has applied to the USPTO for many separate US Trademarks over the Dogecoin brand as a Non-Profit.
  5. There are 15 different marks, some registered, some pending, in countries like Canada, the UK, the EU and Australia that are registered to a UK company called MadeUpNumbers LTD UK, with one active officer - who then apparently transferred the control of MadeUpNumbers LTD to another company called Much Wow LTD with two active officers, both whom are core members of the Dogecoin Foundation.
  6. None of these actions were discussed with the community, and just in case there is a thread out there somewhere, it certainly has not been in the proactive and ongoing way that it needed to be. The Dogecoin Foundation was dissolved in 2014, reformed in 2021 and assumed consent to just start moving forward. So much of these concerns stem from ideas of attaining informed consent and, really, the consent of the governed - which we all will be if enough trademarks are granted. And that’s not even touching on those who are yet to find their way to us who will never have a say.
  7. On September 7th, 2023 I wrote a letter to the Dogecoin Foundation, in good faith, expressing my concerns about many things, including how the process of acquiring Dogecoin trademarks has unfolded and how the lack of communication and optics, even if these efforts are well-meaning, look nefarious.
  8. I received a response to that letter, from Jens, on October 11th. He said he wanted to tighten it up before it was released to the public. To my knowledge, as of this moment, that response has still not yet been released publicly.
  9. Since 2021 Jens has applied for various Dogecoin-related trademarks, largely in quiet, despite fellow Dogecoin Foundation members Tim and Michi – according to what they have directly told me – telling him to stop.
  10. Once granted, Trademarks are assignable by their holders.
  11. Because the Dogecoin Foundation calls itself “Official” there are already new people asking the Dogecoin Foundation for ‘permission’ or ‘their blessing’ to start or work on various projects – which they are clear that they have given – but this is a concerning level of centralization in a decentralized, permissionless space. You don’t have to ask - and, to be clear, the Foundation by that same definition doesn’t have to ask but if they are working on our behalf and claiming governorship of the project and a ridiculous amount of work that is not theirs… shouldn’t they want to?
  12. At the risk of spinning out this entire conversation: It does need to be noted that very fair and reasonable asks for communication and transparency from the Dogecoin Foundation, across a wide range of issues, by community watchdogs have been met with gaslighting, personal attacks/smears and worse in regards to similar and other pre-existing concerns. There is also a very clear outward spiral of words and events escalating over the last two years; much of it emanating from simple requests for clarification, transparency and communication.

May I please ask: Yes, point 12 is an entirely valid avenue of discussion but I would really appreciate it if we can focus our specific discussion here to how we might all proactively work together to prevent any version of the trademark-related ‘Nightmare scenario’ that I’ve articulated below:

Nightmare Scenario:

To be clear, this Nightmare Scenario is a thought experiment based on extrapolating the observed, noted facts and concerns above and assuming bad actors. I am not saying this is going to happen or is happening but the idea that it could even be feasible is worth discussing with as many of us as possible.

  1. The Dogecoin Foundation is granted the relevant Dogecoin trademarks, which then gives the Dogecoin Foundation binding, legal say over what is and is not ‘Dogecoin’ - right down to something like assuming control of the Dogecoin Github repo (aka: the trademark holder could decide who is/is not “allowed” to develop for Dogecoin).
  2. The Dogecoin Foundation, with …

Content cut off. Read original on https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/17awtg0/dogecoin_trademarks_could_this_nightmare_scenario/