Here is the Diamond Standard filing in USPTO.
And here you can see their trademark demands against Nick Mudge, the author of ERC-2535.
We want to get into the ethics and legality of this situation.
First I want to see what is fair and reasonable and first let’s lay out a few facts:
Facts
- The Diamond Standard, Inc trademark goods description heavily mentions “blockchain” and “asset tracking”
- A major (the only?) use case of smart contracts on blockchain is asset tracking (i.e. NFTs, value tokens)
- ERC-2535 helps people write smart contracts and beautifully uses the word “diamond” to intuitively explain that
- EIPs (ERCs) are defined as “standards” as per the EIP project homepage
And I don’t know about when the first ERC-2535 discussions and implementations happened (we can see the main EIPs repo); and I don’t know when the first commercial use of the Diamond Standard, Inc product was or if that date is even relevant.
But for the moment let’s assume that Diamond Standard, Inc has exclusive claim on using that name for their product.
Synthesis
Given these facts (and also understand that I am biased in asserting fact #2 above) let’s synthesize a few things.
First, there is a real risk of confusion that ERC-2535 is related to Diamond Standard, Inc.
Second, if ERC-2535 is going to try to use the name “Diamond []tandard” then the “s” should be lower case, as a descriptive word, and not as part of the name. (EIP editors may or may not allow this.) Or it should be omitted from the name at the top of the page and then any reference to it in the text should use a lower case “s”.
Third, us personally, and anybody skilled in the arts, we all understand that ERC-2535 does not claim to, and does not actually, have anything specifically to “inventory management”, “asset exchange” or anything else claimed in the trademark.
Fourth, for people not skilled in the arts, and who would never use actually ERC-2535, if those people are uncritically listening to arguments from lawyers, they could be convinced that there is infringement.
Fifth, (whether legally required or not) we should want to conduct ourselves in a way that makes sense in front of our peers, but also in front of lay people.
Now therefore I think that in addition to not using a capital “s”, Diamond Standard, Inc should be entitled to demand that ERC-2535 will include a disclaimer “is not related to or endorsed by Diamond Standard Inc., a Delaware corporation” only if ERC-2535 is using the word “standard” next to the word “Diamond” anywhere in its main document or surrounding. EIP editors may or may not allow this.
And then of course, if Diamond Standard, Inc demands that ERC-2535 stop using the word “standard” next to “Diamond” entirely, then we will all know this is overreach for spite and serving no legitimate business purpose.
And I say that if ERC-2535 will want to continue using the capital letter “S” standard in its name, then it is willingly allowing confusion. Even though we all know this confusion is only among people that have nothing to do with ERC-2535 or Diamond Standard, Inc. customers.
And of course EIP editors are fully within their rights to reject any mention of trademarks and outside entities in EIPs. (Especially if the EIP criticizes how Ethereum Foundation itself uses its trademark!)
Conclusion
Let’s get along.
Let’s support ERC-2535 Diamond standard or ERC-2535 Diamond contracts or ERC-2535 Diamonds. And also I’d love to see the Diamond Standard, Inc. product in action and see how that project can be successful too.
▧
Comments
Please discuss this topic anywhere and let me know any great comments or media coverage I should link here.