This guide was generated from real discussion threads on the Apache Incubator mailing list and reflects actual governance, branding, and trademark issues encountered by projects.

Who This Guide Is For

This guide is intended for:

  • Project proposers
  • Podling PPMCs
  • Incubator mentors
  • IPMC members

It is designed to support practical decision-making at proposal time, during incubation, and when preparing a graduation recommendation.

Unifying Principle

Branding at the ASF exists to ensure that the public can clearly distinguish which software is produced by an Apache Project and which is not.

Purpose

This guide explains how to handle branding, naming, trademark ownership, attribution, and project identity throughout the full lifecycle of an Apache podling.

Branding directly affects:

  • Podling independence and neutrality
  • Contributor and user trust
  • Legal clarity
  • Ecosystem perception
  • Long-term governance stability

This guide focuses on what must be done, when, and why, based entirely on real Incubator experience. Guidance in this document complements, but does not replace the ASF Trademark Policy

1. Trademark Ownership Must Be Established Before Entry

When a project proposes entry into the ASF, it must demonstrate:

  • Clear ownership of the project name
  • No conflicting registered trademarks
  • No ambiguity about who controls the trademark

A common situation is:

  • The project name is a registered trademark owned by a company
  • The proposed Apache podling intends to use a different name
  • The statement “this trademark will not be transferred” appears

This indicates that:

  • The company intends to retain trademark rights
  • The ASF must evaluate whether the new podling name is sufficiently distinct
  • The proposal needs an unambiguous disclosure of:
    • Registered marks
    • Regional variations
    • Ongoing company use

2. Naming Conflicts Require Early Resolution

When a company holds a trademark related to a proposed project, the ASF must ensure that the submitted name:

  • It is not confusingly similar to the trademark
  • Cannot reasonably be interpreted as a company product line
  • Does not imply ownership or endorsement by a vendor

This often leads to:

  • A required rename before incubation
  • Documentation of:
    • The old name
    • The new name
    • The reason for the change

3. Clear Disclosure of Corporate Relationships

When a project originates inside a company, the proposal must clearly disclose:

  • Whether the company continues to use the non-Apache name
  • Whether internal development continues
  • Whether documentation or marketing still refers to the old name

The purpose is to:

  • Support transparent governance
  • Avoid later confusion between ASF-hosted and vendor-hosted variants
  • Prevent neutrality issues during incubation

4. Renaming as a Tool for Neutrality

A rename is not a penalty. It is an essential governance tool when needed.

A rename supports:

  • Neutral, community-controlled identity
  • Visual and conceptual separation from proprietary versions
  • Long-term independence of the podling
  • Avoiding reliance on a vendor-owned trademark

The ASF prefers names that:

  • Do not overlap with existing trademarks
  • Avoid ecosystem collisions
  • Do not embed corporate identity

The pre-acceptance period is the ideal time to rename.

5. Avoiding Naming Collisions with Vendor Ecosystems

A name can be unsuitable even without trademark conflict.

Risk factors include:

  • Similarity to a commercial product name
  • Use in a vendor-branded cloud or platform ecosystem
  • High visibility in marketing material tied to a single company
  • Names that imply:
    • Vendor ownership
    • Preferred vendor leadership
    • Integration with a proprietary product line

Perception matters. A legally available name can still be unsuitable.

6. Non-Legal Naming Risks and Cultural Sensitivity

A project name may be unsuitable due to:

  • Cultural appropriation
  • Regionally offensive or exclusionary terms
  • Names implying geographic or cultural dominance

These risks are not detected in trademark searches but can cause:

  • Reputational harm
  • Contributor discomfort
  • Barriers to global adoption

Mentors and PPMCs should include cultural considerations in naming discussions.

7. Evaluation Criteria for Proposal-Time Naming

  • Does the name resemble a commercial product or brand family?
  • Might users assume vendor ownership?
  • Does the name imply association with a proprietary platform?
  • Is the name widely used in package ecosystems or cloud platforms?
  • Could the name be culturally insensitive or exclusionary?

If any apply, a rename is usually required.

8. How Podlings Typically Correct Naming Issues

Effective corrections include:

  • Selecting a name that:

    • It is not part of a commercial ecosystem
    • Does not resemble vendor naming patterns
    • It is distinctive and unambiguously community-owned

  • Clearly documenting:

    • Old name
    • New name
    • Reason for renaming

  • Updating:

    • Websites
    • Repositories
    • Proposal materials
    • Ecosystem documentation

9. Use of the ASF Name Search Process

The ASF name search should be used when:

  • The project renames
  • A proposed name resembles an existing product
  • There is uncertainty about similarity or ecosystem usage
  • A new identity is proposed during incubation

The name search helps verify:

  • Trademark availability
  • Ecosystem conflicts

It provides documented assurance to mentors and the IPMC.

10. Graduation-Time Branding and Domain Stewardship

As graduation approaches, the PPMC becomes the long-term steward of project identity.

At this stage, the PPMC is expected to audit:

  • The website
  • Documentation portals
  • Language package registries
  • Downstream ecosystem references

Branding decisions are led by the PPMC, with oversight appropriate to the podling's governance state. ASF Legal, the IPMC, and corporate contributors advise, but do not control naming decisions. Corporate marketing preferences do not override PPMC authority.

11. Common Branding Failures Seen at Graduation

Typical issues include:

  • Use of the project name without the word “Apache” in prominent locations
  • Missing or incorrect trademark notices
  • Vendor-controlled domains redirecting to ASF infrastructure
  • Downstream packages or documentation omitting Apache attribution

12. Graduation as a Correction Gate

Graduation is the last realistic point to:

  • Correct branding
  • Consolidate domain control
  • Clarify public project identity

Graduation should not be recommended until:

  • Branding surfaces are accurate
  • Attribution is consistent
  • The project has a credible plan for ecosystem correction

Allowing branding gaps to persist introduces long-term risk.

13. How Branding Issues Are Corrected in Practice

Effective PPMCs:

  • Fix ASF branding immediately across podling-controlled infrastructure
  • Request corrections from downstream ecosystem consumers
  • Reduce reliance on third-party or vendor domains

Graduation should only be recommended after core branding issues are resolved.

14. Post-Graduation Incubation Prefix Removal

During incubation, podlings often use markers such as:

  • Incubation disclaimers
  • Incubation labels

After graduation:

  • All incubation indicators must be removed

15. Risks of Delayed Prefix Removal

Delayed cleanup can:

  • Signal immaturity to users
  • Slow adoption
  • Causes incorrect classification in downstream ecosystems

16. PPMC Responsibility for Identity Normalisation

PPMCs are responsible for coordinating:

  • Repository renames (if needed)
  • Website redirects and updates
  • Documentation updates

This work establishes a stable project identity and should not be deferred. Projects rarely arrive with fully compliant branding. Mentors should expect iterative correction, not perfection on day one.

17. Key Takeaways for Mentors, PPMCs, and the IPMC

  • Trademark clarity is required before entry
  • Legal clearance alone is not sufficient
  • Names must avoid vendor association, ecosystem confusion, and cultural insensitivity
  • Renaming before incubation is normal and healthy
  • Graduation should not be recommended until branding is correct
  • Attribution and domain control are essential
  • Incubation status must not persist in public identity after graduation
  • Branding stewardship belongs to the PPMC, with IPMC oversight
  • No labels