[ciphershed] Re: Rebranding

  • From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:00:30 -0400

CipherVault is trademarked:

    http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:2xyxuv.2.1

So is CryptoVault:

    http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:2xyxuv.3.1

Looks to me like we can't use those.  CryptoShed remains a good name,
though if we were to change it, I'd prefer to do it before the
rebranding release.

Bill

On 6/11/2014 8:57 PM, Karen Palen wrote:
> Alain,
> 
> Sadly I think you are correct - the brand name is ever bit as important
> as the actual functioning of the software!
> 
> Personally I like "CypherVault" better than "CryptoShed" on that basis.
> I am sure there is a huge amount to come on this issue.
> 
> For all the coders want to "just make it work" (been there, done that)
> these fundamental building blocks need to be done properly!
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 06/11/2014 05:36 PM, Alain Forget wrote:
>> I'll think more on this and hopefully throw out some ideas tomorrow,
>> but CryptoVault is good. Also, to the average person, "TrueCrypt" is a
>> pretty meaningless name, but some may easily argue it was one of the
>> most successful, usable, trustworthy, and widely-adopted encryption
>> technologies. So my point is that we don't need to get the name perfect.
>>
>> Alain
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Myshkin
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 20:26
>> To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Rebranding
>>
>>
>>       Unfortunately, I have little to zero imagination (literally). My
>> only
>>       contribution to this thread is 'CipherVault', which someone has
>> probably
>>       already thrown out there and I simply missed it. Or maybe
>> something like
>>       'CryptoVault'.
>>     
>>
>>
>>
>> I like "CryptoVault" ; it sounds the way it supposed to work :-) .
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 


Other related posts: