Add trademark usage guidelines document

[tonygermano]

No description provided.

[kayyagari]

@tonygermano thank you for putting these guidelines together. They are permissive where appropriate. It is looking good to me.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR adds a new trademark usage guidelines document to establish clear rules for how the Open Integration Engine trademarks can be used by the community and third parties.

Key Changes:

• Creates comprehensive trademark usage guidelines covering permitted uses, prohibited uses, and uses requiring permission
• Defines the project's trademark portfolio (name, acronym, and logo)
• Provides attribution requirements for trademark usage

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[pacmano1]

This document is largely USA- and UK-centric and uses terminology that does not universally apply across jurisdictions. Outside of those countries, there is currently no legal basis or enforcement mechanism unless and until an international framework (such as registration via the Madrid System) is in place.

Accordingly, directive language such as “must” or “may not” implies authority that does not presently exist in many regions. Until broader legal coverage is established, these guidelines should be framed as requests made out of respect for the work and the community effort, rather than enforceable requirements.

For clarity and accuracy, the tone and wording should be adjusted to reflect this reality.

[tonygermano]

This document is largely USA- and UK-centric and uses terminology that does not universally apply across jurisdictions. Outside of those countries, there is currently no legal basis or enforcement mechanism unless and until an international framework (such as registration via the Madrid System) is in place.

Accordingly, directive language such as “must” or “may not” implies authority that does not presently exist in many regions. Until broader legal coverage is established, these guidelines should be framed as requests made out of respect for the work and the community effort, rather than enforceable requirements.

For clarity and accuracy, the tone and wording should be adjusted to reflect this reality.

I'm going to disagree with you. I think this plainly spells out the requirements to be in good standing with the project, whether it is legally enforceable in all jurisdictions or not.

[jonbartels]

Two questions:

• is trademark_guidelines.md a standard file name? Like the CODEOWNERS, README, or SPDX stuff is commonly known or used
• Does this need to be referenced from any other documents? I think no

[tonygermano]

• is trademark_guidelines.md a standard file name? Like the CODEOWNERS, README, or SPDX stuff is commonly known or used

I have no idea. Would you like me to rename it?

• Does this need to be referenced from any other documents? I think no

I would think after finalizing that we would want it on the website and referenced from vendors.md under "Vendor Expectation" as part of the requirements to be listed.

[jonbartels]

@tonygermano no need to rename it. If no standard exists to our knowledge then no need.

Can you update the PR to include the vendors.md links? That puts this TM PR in context and addresses the problem that spawned the PR

[tonygermano]

@jonbartels would it be acceptable to update the vendors document in a separate PR? This document should stand on its own whether it is referenced from there or not, and I don't want to dismiss all of the reviews on this PR if that is the only request you have.

I asked out-of-band and Paul said it was fine to dismiss.