I've seen two stances in EULA's that either allow for logos to be designed using the font (more specifically, the font is used for the wordmark portion of the logo) and then trademarking that logo... and those EULA's that do not allow a trademark to be pursued.
I'm wondering what the pros/cons of both stances are, and what might be the limitations. Particularly, those EULA's that do not allow this (some perhaps not even allowing the use of a font in a logo design, even if it won't be potentially trademarked). Are there problems for allowing this? Does the foundry lose some leverage or the ability to hold onto certain rights to the font?
We decided to permit logo at no additional cost. There's our standard logic that we want to permit as many static uses as possible in order to keep the licensing terms easy to understand. But also because, as a business matter, we like any use which further commits the customer to our font - it can lead to more sales. In that way one could argue that logo use functions as a bit of a loss leader for us.
Yes, on the legal side, my hope is that there would be minimal to no negative, unforeseen consequences or limitations put on the foundry or font if someone did get a logo trademark using the font (I don't know how that would occur, but considering worst case scenarios). Thanks!
However, I would note that most foundries do permit logo use - it's just add on licensing. That implies that there's no downside to permitting it per se. The question is one of assessed value.
As @JoyceKetterer alluded to, your EULA is also a philosophical document on how you want to run your foundry business.
This is true even when it's a license compliance expert at a design firm. You'd think that someone like that would be able to drive sales our way if they think our license is so much better than others but, alas, the data proves otherwise.
A good EULA needs to be it's own reward. Literally. Though it doesn't sell fonts it does lead easier license enforcement and less customer service.
This is a common thing with large license purchases. Big companies often think they should be able to recraft your EULA in their own image. Some of it is about granting themselves more rights and some of it is just frivolous redrafting because it makes that attorney more comfortable. That process is both costly and not the results are likely not in your best interest.
If your EULA has any drafting errors or point of confusion its much harder to push back on redrafting. If you have a strong and clear EULA it's easier to stand firm.
What we do is take the two issue separately. Any requests for additional rights we quote a price which also covers our anticipated legal costs for the contract.
Any requests that do not grant rights we require them to reimburse our legal fees. The argument is that they have already been quoted a licensing cost which anticipates the standard document will be used. And to be clear, we don't promise we will make the change. They are agreeing to pay for our lawyer's time to consider it. Quite frequently what she does is explain to the other attorney why she thinks the edit isn't needed.
Additionally, we never permit editing inside our EULA. We always produce an addendum for any changes. That's for me later because that way the changed terms are clearly called out and easy to find.
A process note : we do have a word version of our eula (and standard addenda) that the client's attorney can work in. The first thing we produce is a redline against the public documents. Once those edits are agreed on we use that to create a "'miscellaneous addendum" which edits all the relevant standard documents.
This is the stuff I intended to cover in the panel I proposed to atypi on managing the client. The idea was that since I didn't really think this paperwork stuff rose to an entire topic I invited someone to talk about scoping and another person to talk about getting useful feedback in review. The three topics together felt very useful to me. But I guess it was too dry for this year's committee because we were not invited to do it.
(Hmmm, I think the plural of EULA should be EULAE. It sounds like it could be Latin, so....)
For an acronym? No.
Personally, I would love to hear Joyce do a 20-minute solo talk on EULA stuff, or be part of a panel discussion.
@Thomas Phinney, I think I'd have an audience of one.
But I was excited to hear what @Bruno Maag would say about scoping and @Jean-Baptiste Levée about getting useful feedback in review. Client management is a crucial part of being a successful service provider and something so few people teach. I'm sad that the reviewers didn't think it was an engaging topic. Maybe it was just a bias against panels... They can be awful.