Objection: approval of did:tdw

[mwherman2000]

I have a commercial objection to the approval of did:tdw.
"tdw" overlaps significantly with the Trusted Digital Web, the parent project of the Web 7.0 Ultraweb.
Reference: https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb

See PR #581 (comment) for the details.

[jandrieu]

@mwherman2000 Do you have a registered trademark claim in this matter?

I don't believe it would be appropriate for the W3C to be interpreting "significant overlap" unless there were specific intellectual properties that we could examine. such as a recognized trademark.

[mwherman2000]

A trademark registration is neither necessary nor required. This issue specifically relates to the W3C being complicit if this PR is approved.
Beyond this, the infringement extends to the use of the term "Trust DID Web" - an obvious collision with the long, previously established use of the original term "Trusted Digital Web" dating back to 2018. See Prior Use in #581 (comment)

[mccown]

It might be better to say "allegedly infringes". I'm not an attorney, but I googled unregistered trademarks for Canada and found this description (https://www.heerlaw.com/differences-unregistered-registered-trademarks). I make no claims about its accuracy, but it was interesting.

I'll send a note to the TDW authors and see how they'd like to proceed.

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the did meeting on 14 November 2024.

View the transcript

w3c/did-extensions#586

manu: On Joe's point -- 593 was raised. Document still says "Official Registry" -- that is controversial -- so this changes the language, and so there is no language proposed -- "This is a list..." -- says nothing of a Registry. Please comment on the PR.

MichaelHerman: has prepared notes. Unfortunate about what has happened. That said Michael has been working on the Trusted Digital Web for the past ten years -- now called Web 7.0. Has decided to defend his unregistered trademark. Further, this is not the place to adjudicate trademark disputes -- comments made about that are
… irrelevant. This is between Michael's organization and whatever is the did:tdw organization. Raises some other situations that Michael things that he things are precedents.
… Michael plans to see this through. W3C needs to think about if it is complicit.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to "patent and trademark issues" and "they're just people's opinions"

<JoeAndrieu> +1 to continue

manu: Need more time to talk through this. Request -- to be continued.

<JoeAndrieu> IANAL, but IMO, did:tdw is a valid trademark of did:tdw and not a valid trademark, registered or otherwise, of Michael Herman

manu: This became an issue when trademark issues were raised. There are a set of policies that kick in. This is the WG that owns the document and that means that they must be addressed here. If those goes the litigation path, there are lawyers that will have weigh in.
… Saying W3C is too broad -- need to be more specific about who Michael wants to engage in W3C.
… Up to DID Working group if there is no resolution on the PR.

Wip: To be continued. Need to close the call.
… Thanks all.

<pchampin> s|w3c/did-resolution#19|subtopic: w3c/did-resolution#19

---

[wip-abramson]

I believe this has been addressed. Can we close the issue?

[mwherman2000]

Not until the application for the Web 7.0 did:TDW is approved

Reference #603