Is Mambo really trademarked by Miro???

[Elpie]

In a fit of madness, late at night, (or early hours of the morning, as it is here in NZ) I decided to try to find just WHERE Miro has trademarked the name.
Not in Australia - the Mambo trademark and 100%Mambo is owned by the Mambo Graphics company, who make clothing.  While I haven't installed the applets to do a thorough search of the db, the fact that Mambo PL in Sydney successfully blocked mambo (small "m") from being registered in 2001 makes me think Miro is just not there.
Not in the US either.  There are several word marks, character marks and design marks for Mambo - but none owned by Miro and none relating to software or anything to do with computers.

Just curious...

[kenmcd]

It does not have to be a "registered" trademark to be valid.

TM - is unregistered.

(R) - is registered.

[unity]

Full details of Miro's trademark application for the Mambo name in 'Oz' are posted here - http://forum.opensourcematters.org/inde ... ml#msg1203

[yerg]

Doesn't matter does it??

This group is now more that what Mambo was ... it has a new spirit ... an new beginning.

Whether Miro has registered the name as a trademark they have prior use on theri side. Whilst I'm for continuity this is a rebirth lets move on.

My 0.02 worth

[Elpie]

I realise that unregistered trademarks confer some, LIMITED rights, but I was questioning the Miro statement that they owned the trademark in the name Mambo.
Nowhere on the Miro site do they use (TM) or state that Mambo is a trademark.

What I have found since I last posted is interesting and makes me wonder about the sincerity of Miro in the developments over these last months.

Miro currently has 6 trademark applications going through the process in Australia. 

Mambo (application #1048589) lodged 31/3/05 (as in March 2005 for those who write dates the wrong way )
It was first reported on 23/6/05 and is due to be approved on 23/9/06 - yes, 2006.
Classification no's. 9,35,38,41,42.

Mambo Siteserver (application #991150) lodged 1/03/04 and due to be approved on 17/9/05.

Mambo CMS (application #991152 & 991207) lodged on the same date, same date for approval as the siteserver name.  Both these have classifications of 9,38,41,42.

Interesting timing.  If anyone wanted to dispute Miro's claim to the Mambo trademark, they have until 23rd September to do this. 

If I was a cynic I would wonder if the Foundation's claim that they were forced to make the announcement earlier than planned had anything to do with that 23/9 date - luckily, I'm not cynical though

[Elpie]

Doesn't matter does it??

This group is now more that what Mambo was ... it has a new spirit ... an new beginning.

Whether Miro has registered the name as a trademark they have prior use on theri side. Whilst I'm for continuity this is a rebirth lets move on.

I'm not that sure that it doesn't matter actually.  Miro used the name, sure, but then they renamed their commerical version and sent the code and name out to the open source community.  One could argue that it has the reputation as open source, not as a Miro product and that the prior use is attached to the community, not the original developer. 

"Our" Mambo won the Linux awards and has been downloaded and used worldwide.  Miro's product did neither. 

While this is an apparent "rebirth" in some ways, to the wider community it is simply a parting of the ways between the developers + community and the sponsor.  In my opinion, the dev team have far more right to continue using the name than Miro does to take it back.

If the dev team and community were of a mind to lodge an opposition to the trademark, I would support it.
However, being realistic, time is too short and there are many other things to be sorted out.
BUT - let's not forget that trademarks are geographically limited.  While Miro is looking at trademarking the name in Australia, the bulk of users are outside of that country and there is absolutely nothing to stop this community registering the name in the US.  I'm not suggesting this is wise (too much confusion) but just throwing it in as an idea.  I really HATE to see the dev team losing the credit for developing a multi-award winning CMS.

[Beat]

Doesn't matter does it??
This group is now more that what Mambo was ... it has a new spirit ... an new beginning.
Whether Miro has registered the name as a trademark they have prior use on theri side. Whilst I'm for continuity this is a rebirth lets move on.

I personally think that not only open source but also name matters (TM!) . It's actually probably one of the major open issue as I understand from zapping through the forums here.

Actually, as it will probably crystallize in the next weeks looking back, it seems clear that it's the strong core dev Team and the strong Community around them that actually continues the mambo work and that it's Miro which might be forking (actually they already did with their commercial product as I understand).

So after all press article, award publicity, and user-base awareness, it would be a pity to change name. Let's face it, the Mambo momentum continuity is already here, not anymore at mamboserver.com right now.

I'm not that sure that it doesn't matter actually.  Miro used the name, sure, but then they renamed their commerical version and sent the code and name out to the open source community.  One could argue that it has the reputation as open source, not as a Miro product and that the prior use is attached to the community, not the original developer. 

Agree fully, and, from my experience, probably most trademark offices will also.

"Our" Mambo won the Linux awards and has been downloaded and used worldwide.  Miro's product did neither. 

One more good point for an opposition to the applications.

Usually, trademark offices are very much listening to oppositiions at filing time, and tend very much to reject applications in case of uncertainty.

While this is an apparent "rebirth" in some ways, to the wider community it is simply a parting of the ways between the developers + community and the sponsor.  In my opinion, the dev team have far more right to continue using the name than Miro does to take it back.

Indeed, without trademark registration, it's the actual use of a trademark which can give the limited rights to continue using it even if somebody registers for it afterwards. Approved registration grants you the a little bit less limited right to enforce others that started using it after your priority or registration date for the same field to stop using it. Nothing more.

As the Mambo trademark is included and part of the GPL-ed code, and Miro gave also in practice to the community the right to use it, Mambo is now practically not owned solelly by Miro anymore. Even if they get the filing without opposition, they will not be able to enforce hindering somebody else from using it.

If the dev team and community were of a mind to lodge an opposition to the trademark, I would support it.
However, being realistic, time is too short and there are many other things to be sorted out.
BUT - let's not forget that trademarks are geographically limited.  While Miro is looking at trademarking the name in Australia, the bulk of users are outside of that country and there is absolutely nothing to stop this community registering the name in the US.  I'm not suggesting this is wise (too much confusion) but just throwing it in as an idea.  I really HATE to see the dev team losing the credit for developing a multi-award winning CMS.

Again, fully agree.

I registered myself and own 3 international trademarks in about 25 countries, and deal with that kind of stuff regularly, including filings, extensions, oppositions and trademark enforcements.

I will do an intenational trademark check on "Mambo" and share my findings in this thread. But the chances that the open-source community can continue using proudly "Mambo" without fears seems to look not to bad at first glance .

Now keeping or changing the name is also a marketing decision, if it's not a legal one, but that's another story going on in the other thread.

Stay tuned. I will be back  .

Beat

[indaba]

The word mambo and some logical derivatives ARE trademarked, but all the 4 trademarks (below) in Australia are *not* finalized/ approved yet....

search for the TM's here :
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmo ... Run_Create

991150 MAMBO SITESERVER 9, 38, 41, 42 Pending, Under Examination - Extension Fees Not Required

991152 MAMBO CMS 9, 38, 41, 42 Pending /Under Examination - Extension Fees Not Required

991207 MAMBO CMS 9, 38, 41, 42 Pending Under Examination - Extension Fees Not Required

1048589 MAMBO 9, 35, 38, 41, 42 Pending Under Examination - Extension Fees Not Required

ps - to clear up some previous confusion re the clothing trademakr Mambo -
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmo ... ass_es.htm
"A person applying for a trade mark has to state the goods and/or services on which the trade mark is or will be used. All goods and/or services are classified according to a system of 45 classes"

mambo in this context is *principally* class 9 : http://xeno.ipaustralia.gov.au/tmgoods.htm

there *IS* value in a name, and NOW would be the time to lodge a trademark dispute with IP Australia before the TM's are awarded to Miro by default...

[thethepapapa]

I think I've found a more suitable use for the mark...

    (__)

Ohhh, I'm gonna get slapped for that one! Yellow card!  Yellow Card!

[Predator]

(as in March 2005 for those who write dates the wrong way )

Sorry this is really nice thought allways as german all the english people did it wrong

[Elpie]

Just to add - I did a thorough search of the US Trademarks and while there are a number of registrations for "Mambo" there is not one which relates to computers, software, or IT in any form.

I am of the opinion that it would be a waste of time and money to dispute the Miro resgistration of Mambo in Australia.  Time is too short and the stress on the core dev team is high enough without wondering where the name dispute might go. 
If there was support from the core team and community to go down this road then I would suggest a team be formed to deal with it.

However, there is no reason at all why the name could not be trademarked in, say, the US.  I am sure we could get enough funds together to do this.

Many people are saying they feel Mambo is dead.  Well, I feel that end-users want stability and certainty that the project will continue.  The branding is out there, and it is attached to the current developers and this community.  What would happen if we continued to use the Mambo name?  It is not a commercial product so there is no trade issue in Australia,  the site is accessed FROM Australia, but does not reside there.  Sure, there would be confusion if the M- Foundation/Miro also used the same name, but at the end of the day, they are making commercial decisions and they are the ones most likely to need a name change.

My biggest worry is that end-users would not see a rebranded product as the continuation of the award-winning project, but would treat it as a new, unproven cms.  We would all be effectively starting over and it will take a long time for the branding and marketing to get back to where we are now.
I have some doubts as to whether Miro/Foundation can actually make a go of their Mambo and worry that the name is not in good hands if left up to them.

People are waiting for MAMBO 4.5.3 - why give them any less?
Let Miro do whatever it wants, but I feel that this community should just continue to do what is has been doing. 

My opinion, lawyers, of course, may not agree

[Beat]

Just to add - I did a thorough search of the US Trademarks and while there are a number of registrations for "Mambo" there is not one which relates to computers, software, or IT in any form.

I am of the opinion that it would be a waste of time and money to dispute the Miro resgistration of Mambo in Australia.  Time is too short and the stress on the core dev team is high enough without wondering where the name dispute might go. 
If there was support from the core team and community to go down this road then I would suggest a team be formed to deal with it.

...

Shortly back to say: Agreeing with you.

I've done that myself several times before, and think I can help here if needed.

Just completed an international trademark research on "Mambo" with mostly similar but also very interesting findings (writing report to post here begin of next week) and already called my regular contacts at the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) in nearby Geneva regarding that matter. More begin of next week.

Following that, I can prepare an urgent trademark actions plan proposal to submit to core team, but will not execute anything without coordination with core-team.

Obviously if core team and the Community desire a name change anyway, it would be a pure marketing decision and render these trademark actions useless.

Who within the core team is/are in charge of this naming and trademark question ?

- Beat

[alwarren]

Following that, I can prepare an urgent trademark actions plan proposal to submit to core team, but will not execute anything without coordination with core-team.

I think that's an excelent idea. If we could secure the Mambo brand or at least prevent Miro from securing it, half the battle would be won.

I'm also wondering how Miro can claim 100% copyright to the code when it was written by an independant group of developers. Did core developers sign any agreements turning over copyrights to their code to Miro? While I don't know the inner workings of how the development team and Miro were structured from a copyright standpoint it would seem to me that individual developers would have rights to the code they developed. If that's the case, I think a class action suit between the developers and Miro might be in order. I know, more legal proceding to get in the way but it's something to consider. And I'm sure they have competent legal advice already. Just thinking outloud I guess.

[Matrixguru]

:P
You go away for a week and all hell Breaks out, As a long time user of mambo and critic of miro, this does not surprise me because miro had a good cms that was not quite right for commercial sale, so released it to open source to clean up code, which everone fix for them, so they then had a good cms to sell, so they did not need the open source version anymore goodbye, as time went on there version was not growing as quickly as the open source version was, surprise surprise which they did not like so they went about trying to reclaim it, so over a period of time now they have been slowly taking it back piece by piece, this has included all copyrights and trademarks and anything else related to mambo, all without anybody realizing it, the open source version is worth more than there paid version... I just hope it does not extend to website names being the owner of mambositeserver dot com and they said I was paranoid.....

::)



   

[ex-mamber]

I just hope Core and their legal advise see the importance there IS in the name, it is Mambo that won prices, not anything else.
I 150% agree with Elpie on the importance of this, and the time it would take to establish, promote, market a new name.
Not even mentioning all the local support sites with ..mambo.. somewhere in their name/url. Easy to said "just buy a new domain", that's simply not all there is to it, also consider 1000s of signed-up users, time and money invested by volunteers on a non-profit, support Mambo because we love it basis..

[PhilTaylor-Prazgod]

Following that, I can prepare an urgent trademark actions plan proposal to submit to core team, but will not execute anything without coordination with core-team.

I think that's an excelent idea. If we could secure the Mambo brand or at least prevent Miro from securing it, half the battle would be won.

I'm also wondering how Miro can claim 100% copyright to the code when it was written by an independant group of developers. Did core developers sign any agreements turning over copyrights to their code to Miro? While I don't know the inner workings of how the development team and Miro were structured from a copyright standpoint it would seem to me that individual developers would have rights to the code they developed. If that's the case, I think a class action suit between the developers and Miro might be in order. I know, more legal proceding to get in the way but it's something to consider. And I'm sure they have competent legal advice already. Just thinking outloud I guess.

I can confirm that a "Joint Copyright Assignment By The Contributor" was signed by all core members in September 2004

I have no knowledge if this was signed by new members after that date.

[freemambo]

Following that, I can prepare an urgent trademark actions plan proposal to submit to core team, but will not execute anything without coordination with core-team.

Obviously if core team and the Community desire a name change anyway, it would be a pure marketing decision and render these trademark actions useless.

Who within the core team is/are in charge of this naming and trademark question ?

- Beat

In case this community and its leadership (Core Team) decide to hold on to the Mambo name, I have secured truemambo.com for such a potential eventuality.

[benwk]

I'm curious if any of you, especially Elpie, have considered the implications of required trademark display on the front end of web apps.

While a company might release source code under a GPL, it can require its trademarks to be conspicuously placed on the user interface. And even with a GPL, the company can always restrict use of the trademark.

By removing permission to use its trademark, a company could effectively forbid use of the app it released, as far as I can tell. (i.e. the user would either violate the GPL by removing the trademark, or the tradmark sanction by displaying a logo or name.)

Can anyone point me to a body of work on this issue?

[alwarren]

While a company might release source code under a GPL, it can require its trademarks to be conspicuously placed on the user interface. And even with a GPL, the company can always restrict use of the trademark.

It's been awhile since I read through the GPL. Where does it say that?

[DeanMarshall]

Ben,

I can see what you are saying and as an exercise in logic you are probably correct, but it doesn't apply in this case because no-one is under any obligation to display a copright notice or trademark from Miro or anyone else. Our sites are our sites, and automatically our copyright. We can display whatever we want on them and remove anything we want from them.

I am guessing that you are thinking along these lines because of the 'default' copyright info built into the language files and displayed through the /includes/footer.php file that most templates automatically 'include'.  We are under no obligation to show this info - it is just a bit of self promotion built in by Miro way back.  The only copyright info we are required to maintain is in the source code - and frankly that isn't too big a chore.

Of course I could be totally missing what you were getting at - in which case my apologies.

Dean Marshall.

[benwk]

Hi Dean,
Thanks for your reply. You've addressed the exact issue that I was getting at, but my comments weren't related directly to Mambo.

This is a general concern I have for OSS that I first thought of when evaluating SugarCRM. That said, is there anything from preventing the Mambo Foundation from doing this with new releases of their CMS?

Ben

[DeanMarshall]

I would suspect that there is nothing to stop Miro adding any contract terms they like to a 'new' body of code; in general all things are possible unless precluded by prior contract terms, or judged an 'unfair' contract term by a court of law.

But whatever they did it wouldn't apply retrospectively to this 'fork' - in part because you can't apply terms retrospectively and in part because as I understand it the 'dev team' hold joint copyright on the code they commit to the project by virtue of the "Joint Copyright Assignment By The Contributor" - which I take to mean assigns copyrightly jointly to the contributor and the recipient - presumably Miro.

The GPL license as already applied to the code base, is probably effective enough to prevent additional limitations being placed on the code's usage.  As the code is already released under the GPL you or I, or anyone else including the 'dev team' can take a copy and create a derivative work from that code - as long as the GPL's terms are followed. 

Dean

[Beat]

OK. I'm BACK ! I've done some homework (home, you name it, since Geneva, home of the World Intellectual Property Organisation WIPO is nearby) and here are the first detailed results:

Miro has filed an international extension only with their last application of the trademark Mambo (without other word), and the filing has just been received 2005-08-02 (2nd August) by WIPO and got currently the status "in examination". The countries for which registration protection has been applied are: Benelux, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Italy and USA. The priority date is 2005-06-10, date of receipt of office of origin.

Application number is AU: 104 85 89. You can view the application using the wipo online search by entering "mambo" and selecting "Trademarks" under database: it's the last of the 14 "mambo" registrations. Classes applied for are 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42, same as in Australia. No real overlap with other WIPO registered trademarks of identical name. So seems not a problem for the use of Mambo internationally as is. As I regularly work with WIPO for trademarks, I am in contact with them also regarding this matter (but will not make any moves without coordination with core team).

Trademark research in Benlux has shown following results: the Public Waste Agency of Flanders in Belgium has registered Mambo on 12.12.2000 for classes 9 16 42, and two other registrations intersect partially also within classes 9, 41 and 42 as described by Miro. Conclusion (from my experience with Benelux trademark's office, by the way a very good one): The registration will be rejected in Benelux or accepted with  limitations. The existing "mambo" registrations in Benelux are not a problem for using Mambo as mark for the opensourcematters product because of priority dates (a registration protects only against uses in same trademark classes which are posterior to the prioritiy date filed with the registration (and which needs to be proven in case it gets challenged).

Trademark research in Switzerland shows a slight intersection on class 16 with a state bank's newspaper registration, to which I have connections, if needed. Without opositions (or WIPO rejection), Miro's filing here could go through. The existing "mambo" registrations in Switzerland are not a problem for using Mambo as mark for the opensourcematters product.

European Union office for trademarks
Very interestingly, Mambo Graphics Pty Ltd. Australia, holder of Mambo as trademark in other classes for clothes and footwear, has been actively and successfully opposing to numerous other Mambo registrations intersecting in the European union, getting opposition accepted very fast (by IP timescale): less than 2 months. Also others have actively opposed to Mambo entertainment trademarks, always with success, up to now. Finally, number of registration fillings have been withdrawn after examination. Again, Mambo Graphics Pty Ltd. has successfully registered the Mambo European trademark (no 000006106 filed 1996-04-01) for Clothing, footwear and headgear, as well as sunglasses &co and jewlerly. There are near to no intersections between "our" Mambo and registered European trademarks. The existing "mambo" registrations in European Union trademarks are not a problem for using Mambo as mark for the opensourcematters product.

I've done much more research in other key countries (from a trademarks point of view, leading to similar results.

Conclusions

• There are no trademark registrations which forbid registering and using mambo, except the pending Miro registration, and only once accepted if it does not get opposition.
• There is still some little time left to form oppositions in Australia and internationally on Miro's registration requests. If this is not shooting into our foots is another question, now that Miro announced fully transferring trademarks (probably also registrations as I understand) and copyrights into their open-source foundation and announced readiness to listen to the community (probably thanks to the strength of the Community of this site and couple of initiatives). Given the priority dates filed by Miro which are posterior to the use of Mambo in Open-Source, and all evidences thereof, simple not-expensive oppositions have excellent chances to be receivable by all concerned trademarks registration offices, which are very ear to such oppositions in my experience.
• The deadlined option itself to form opposition could also be used more wisely for a last attempt to negotiate any final peace terms with the foundation founded by Miro, be it regarding legal or commercial aspects, if anything can still be done to avoid a definitive clash (permanent clashes are seldom productive). But this is more strategy and politics than hard facts. The weight of the community here is also a fact in that direction.
• Mambo can be used as name for this Open-source variant: the registration priority dates are after their first use in open-source, as permitted at that time. This granted right cannot be retroactively removed, neither to core team, nor to the Community.
• There is no need for a change in name from a legal standpoint.

I've been registering, using and fighting international trademarks for years and can assist the core team if wished so. There are additional options that for strategic reasons can't be disclosed publicly but that can be discussed privately. I'm already in phone contact with WIPO regarding this issue, but am now I'm trying to contact core team (who is in charge of trademark and product naming there ? anybody from core team reading this? : please forward/answer/pm as needed) to coordinate before doing any actions.

Now if the core team wants anyway to change the name for marketing or politics reasons, that's another story, covered on another thread. In that case, there is no point continuing this Mambo trademarking effort. Sorry for having been a little long, I condensated as much as I could my notes.

At least we now all know that keeping the Mambo name is a option, which is not illegal and also deserves our consideration.

- Beat

[brian]

Thank you for your research. I will forward this to our legal advisors.

However I have to say that personaly I think it is best to move on with a new name and spend our time doing what we do best. Devloping the greatest CMS ever.

For me I'm sick of dealing with lawyers etc and want to get back to the fun stuff

Brian

[askjv]

Beat - what a lot of work you have done. It is impressive how many people are giving so much for this effort to defend and ensure an open environment - there is clearly a lot of symbolic power attached to the name mambo for the community, not that that could not shift if necessary.  Thanks for the lesson in trademarking either way.

[Beat]

Thank you for your research. I will forward this to our legal advisors.

However I have to say that personaly I think it is best to move on with a new name and spend our time doing what we do best. Devloping the greatest CMS ever.

For me I'm sick of dealing with lawyers etc and want to get back to the fun stuff

Brian

Thanks Brian,
Please forward your advisors this thread not only my posts, there are quite a few good posts in here regarding legal matters.

Hope that your legal advisors are not only advising (incl. their duty in telling all possible legal risks, even by just opening your mouth ) but also acting, so that you guys can go back to the better stuff .  If they don't or even if they do, maybe you could form a "corporate" advisory&executive management/legal and trademark competance group around you as you have marketing and PR. Would free your time and let everybody do what they do best. I'm not a lawyer, but a pragmatic enterpreuneur with (fortunately and unfortunately) an extended practice of international business law, including quite some with trademarks and negociations, and willing to help if required.

I can understand your feelings inside the core team, and that you had enough of it, so that the change of name is also a "refreshing perspective" for all of you. And that's fully understandable. And having all of you having to think about these nasty things instead of coding great new features waited for is a pitty.

The perspective in the Community (appart of the excitation around these happenings) is a little different, as we have not lived through all this stuff, but we all have lived through other changes also. A part of us, and a good part of our users and customers usually don't want revolutions and seek stability in their infrastructure. A change of brand/group etc is a disruption factor for them, and also an identification problem for the Community. Same for all brand-related stuff. The Community is not looking after fresh air, but at evolution of that great CMS. Rebranding is quite some work for all of us. Let's avoid that extra-work and hassle and go back to developing.
------
Thanks Julie for the nice words   indeed some work going on behind these emails...
------
Also, here one more trademark-related important argument that might not appear logical at first glance:

The legal risks with keeping "Mambo" are in fact much smaller than with picking any other name !

Why   ?! :

The "Mambo" trademark has been used for this Open-source CMS since quite a while (and prior to Miro's registration priority date), and has never been opposed/challenged up to now.

That gives quite some level of confidence, that a new trademark has to build up over time, and that the best TM-search can't replace.

With "Mambo", the only "trademark-risk" is now fortunately well known (Miro, and soon their foundation as I understand) and analyzed (see my previous post) to be very/completely unrisky from a legal standpoint. From a business standpoint another post from unity notices correctly that the short-term risk is anyway very small :

...
That being said, its very unlikely that Miro would start down the road of trademark enforcement for some time, not least due to the bad press they'd get but also because they can't afford to alienate 3PD's at the moment....
...

Therefore you have to weight following "business" risks/threaths and profits:

• The risk over the next 2-3 years once picking up a new name (not quantifiable)
• The Miro Open-source Foundation being nasty against other open-source groups (not very likely if they want to look good to the open-source communities needed for their success)
• The risk of gaining/loosing users and community members while keeping/changing name
• The workload of a rebranding onto the core team and the community / loosing some on the way
• The probability of succeeding in oppositions to Miro's current TM-registration filings (very high, see my previous post), securing "Mambo" right of use for the long-term open-source project.

I made a SWOT (Strengths Weeknesses Opportunities Threats) analysis on both options (keeping well-known Mambo brand, or picking new better brand), which shows that change of name brings much more uncertainties from a legal and Community standpoint than keeping the existing one.

Back to work

[keliix06]

That would save registration on 16 new domains

[joomlahut]

The perspective in the Community (appart of the excitation around these happenings) is a little different, as we have not lived through all this stuff, but we all have lived through other changes also. A part of us, and a good part of our users and customers usually don't want revolutions and seek stability in their infrastructure. A change of brand/group etc is a disruption factor for them, and also an identification problem for the Community. Same for all brand-related stuff. The Community is not looking after fresh air, but at evolution of that great CMS. Rebranding is quite some work for all of us. Let's avoid that extra-work and hassle and go back to developing.

I totally agree, it would be great if we can keep the name or even a variation, this will save us a lot of trouble, besides the awards were given to "Mambo"

[ex-mamber]

Exactly my words..
http://forum.mambofacile.com/showthread.php?t=1738

(but that's in French)

[jgobiz]

Also, here one more trademark-related important argument that might not appear logical at first glance:
The legal risks with keeping "Mambo" are in fact much smaller than with picking any other name !

I totally agree with you Beat, especially because i have to work on international branding strategies. :-)