>They blew us off and responded by filing the community trademark application claiming the exclusive right to use "Python" for software, servers, and web services - everywhere in Europe. //
I'm not a TM lawyer by a long shot but this looks like a knee-jerk response to an entirely frivolous claim.
Python lacks distinctiveness in the category covering software because it describes a long standing computer language and is moreover already associated with other companies, such as PSF. OHIM or whoever is assessing the application have to refuse the grant on this basis otherwise there would be a severe curtailment to the ability for practitioners in the field to describe basic and essential tools without confusion.
To grant such a term as a trademark, an indicator that goods and services carrying the mark "python" originate with Veber/Pobox, would be an absolute travesty akin to granting someone a mark for Jeans or Denim in the relevant categories for clothing.
It worries me slightly to see that this appeal has been made because it suggests a deficiency in legal counsel; unless the intention is to counter-sue.
Trademark primacy can be established by long term use but holding a domain name with a mark in [particularly one like Python that is established as a {non-registered?} trade mark already, eg of PSF] doesn't demonstrate use of a trade mark for trade. Moreover as I understand the TM law in the UK/EC it should [according to statute] be impossible for anyone to register a trade mark from under you, that is you would still be able to continue your prior usage of the term. In this respect a RTM is somewhat like a patent, you can't prevent someone from continuing in their prior [public] usage. As a quibble grant of a registered trademark doesn't necessarily give exclusive rights for this very reason.
On a side note, it seems they are also only applying for an image mark? That would make the claim that they're trying to prevent your use of the term Python wrong, they can only prevent you using their image or one confusingly like it as I understand it.
FWIW the earliest CTM relevant Vienna class 9 application I could find was from an individual in Germany from 2002 (002567972) and that the use was for something to do with automobile tuning (see eg http://www.offroad-forum.de/viewtopic.php?t=11763&start=...). PSF have an established use before that.
They are claiming the image mark, but the image is the word "Python" with only minimal embellishment. Further, they have added broader rights in private conversation.
There's at least one company that already has a similar trademark registered, indeed looking at the Python image marks this one from Veber looks pretty close to a prior registered one (also in class 9 IIRC).
PSF are not going to want to use this companies image mark, really.
You don't gain legal rights by mentioning in conversation what you wish you had the right to do/prevent.
I'm not a TM lawyer by a long shot but this looks like a knee-jerk response to an entirely frivolous claim.
Python lacks distinctiveness in the category covering software because it describes a long standing computer language and is moreover already associated with other companies, such as PSF. OHIM or whoever is assessing the application have to refuse the grant on this basis otherwise there would be a severe curtailment to the ability for practitioners in the field to describe basic and essential tools without confusion.
To grant such a term as a trademark, an indicator that goods and services carrying the mark "python" originate with Veber/Pobox, would be an absolute travesty akin to granting someone a mark for Jeans or Denim in the relevant categories for clothing.
It worries me slightly to see that this appeal has been made because it suggests a deficiency in legal counsel; unless the intention is to counter-sue.
Trademark primacy can be established by long term use but holding a domain name with a mark in [particularly one like Python that is established as a {non-registered?} trade mark already, eg of PSF] doesn't demonstrate use of a trade mark for trade. Moreover as I understand the TM law in the UK/EC it should [according to statute] be impossible for anyone to register a trade mark from under you, that is you would still be able to continue your prior usage of the term. In this respect a RTM is somewhat like a patent, you can't prevent someone from continuing in their prior [public] usage. As a quibble grant of a registered trademark doesn't necessarily give exclusive rights for this very reason.
On a side note, it seems they are also only applying for an image mark? That would make the claim that they're trying to prevent your use of the term Python wrong, they can only prevent you using their image or one confusingly like it as I understand it.
FWIW the earliest CTM relevant Vienna class 9 application I could find was from an individual in Germany from 2002 (002567972) and that the use was for something to do with automobile tuning (see eg http://www.offroad-forum.de/viewtopic.php?t=11763&start=...). PSF have an established use before that.