Trademark and brand use

At a glance

The “NextPDF” name and the NextPDF logo are trademarks of PATEON NETWORK TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED. They identify the official NextPDF software and its source. The open-source core is licensed under the Apache License 2.0, but that license covers the code, not the brand: it grants no trademark rights (Apache-2.0 §6). This page explains that boundary — what you may do with the code versus what you may do with the name and logo — and gives concrete acceptable and unacceptable uses.

Boundary. Code licensing and trademark licensing are separate. A license to the source (the Apache License 2.0 for the core) tells you what you may do with the software. It does not give you rights in the NextPDF name or logo. Having the code rights does not grant brand rights. This page is a plain-language statement of that boundary; it is not legal advice and does not create any trademark license.

The trademark holder

The NextPDF name and logo are owned by PATEON NETWORK TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED. This ownership is asserted in the source of the proprietary editions, whose file headers carry @copyright 2026 PATEON NETWORK TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, and it applies to the brand across all editions — Core, Pro, and Enterprise alike. The marks identify software that is the official, unmodified NextPDF as published by the trademark holder.

Why the code license is not a brand license

The Apache License 2.0 contains an explicit clause on this point. Its trademark section states that the license does not grant permission to use the licensor’s trade names, trademarks, or logos, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the work and reproducing the content of a NOTICE file (Apache-2.0 §6).

That clause is deliberate. A permissive open-source license is generous with the code precisely so it can be forked and modified freely — and trademark law is what keeps “NextPDF” meaning the official software even when the code is open. If the code license also handed out the name, any modified build could call itself “NextPDF,” and users could no longer tell the official software from a third party’s altered version. The split protects users, not just the brand.

So the rule for the core is straightforward:

You may use the code under the Apache License 2.0. You may not use the NextPDF name or logo to brand, market, or imply endorsement of a build you have modified or that did not come from the trademark holder.

Forks and modified builds

You are free to fork nextpdf/core and to build, modify, and redistribute it under the Apache License 2.0, honoring that license’s attribution and NOTICE obligations (Apache-2.0 §4; see Licensing). What you may not do is ship that modified build as “NextPDF” or under the NextPDF logo.

A fork or modified distribution must:

Ship under its own name and branding. Choose a distinct product name and visual identity that is not confusingly similar to “NextPDF” and does not use the NextPDF logo.
Not imply endorsement, affiliation, or origin. Do not present the modified build in a way that suggests PATEON NETWORK TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED produced, endorses, certifies, or supports it.
Still meet the Apache-2.0 attribution duties. Describing that your product is based on or derived from NextPDF — factually, to credit origin — is the reasonable-and-customary descriptive use the license preserves (Apache-2.0 §6). Branding your product as NextPDF is not.

Acceptable vs unacceptable brand use

The line is between truthfully referring to NextPDF and branding as NextPDF or implying an official relationship.

Generally acceptable (nominative, factual reference)

Stating that your application “uses NextPDF Core” or “is built with NextPDF.”
Writing a tutorial, comparison, review, or integration guide that names NextPDF to refer to the official software.
Saying a fork is “based on NextPDF Core (Apache-2.0)” to credit origin, while the fork itself ships under its own name.
Reproducing the NOTICE file and existing attribution notices as the Apache License 2.0 requires (Apache-2.0 §4 and §6).

Generally unacceptable (brand appropriation or implied endorsement)

Naming or branding a modified or forked build “NextPDF,” or any name confusingly similar to it.
Using the NextPDF logo on, or to market, a build that is modified or did not come from the trademark holder.
Presenting your product, service, or distribution as official, endorsed, certified, affiliated with, or supported by NextPDF or PATEON NETWORK TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED when it is not.
Using “NextPDF” in a company name, product name, domain, or app-store listing in a way that suggests you are the source of NextPDF.
Altering the NextPDF logo, or combining it with other marks, to create a new brand.

When in doubt, the test is whether your use could lead a reasonable person to believe your offering is NextPDF, or is endorsed by its maker. If it could, the use is not acceptable.

The code-versus-brand boundary

Two distinct licensing regimes apply to NextPDF, and they answer different questions:

	Software-product license	Trademark / brand license
Governs	The code — the source you can read, run, and change	The brand — the “NextPDF” name and logo
For the core	Apache License 2.0 (open source)	No grant; marks are reserved (Apache-2.0 §6)
Tells you	What you may do with the software	How you may refer to or display the brand
Holding it gives	Rights in the code (use, modify, redistribute)	Nothing automatically — brand rights are separate

The crucial point: obtaining the code rights — even the broad ones the Apache License 2.0 grants for the core — does not confer brand rights. The name and logo stay with the trademark holder regardless of the code license.

Per-edition branding

This page is about third-party use of the NextPDF name and logo. It does not cover how the official editions brand their own output. The evaluation watermarking and branding behavior of the paid editions — what appears during an evaluation and how a paid license removes it — is documented separately on the premium branding pages: see Trial and evaluation branding and Branding. For which license applies to which edition, see Licensing.

Edge cases & gotchas

Fork freely, rebrand fully. Forking the Apache-2.0 core is encouraged by the license; carrying the NextPDF name or logo onto that fork is not part of the grant. Pick your own name.
Attribution is required, branding is not permitted. Apache-2.0 §4 makes you keep the existing notices when you redistribute; that duty to attribute is not a license to brand with the marks. Both facts hold at once.
“Open source” is about the code, not the name. That the core is open source does not place the name or logo in the public domain. The marks are reserved even when the code is freely licensed.
This is a summary. This page describes the brand-use policy in plain language. It does not grant any trademark license and is not legal advice. For uses beyond reasonable, factual reference, seek permission from PATEON NETWORK TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED.

Security notes

Trademark protection is also a trust signal for users. Because the name and logo are reserved, the presence of official NextPDF branding is an indication that a build is the unmodified, published software rather than a third-party fork. That distinction is a reason the brand cannot ride along with the code license: it would erase the signal that lets users tell official software from a modified copy. It is not, however, a cryptographic guarantee of authenticity; verify provenance through the package registry and release signatures, not through the appearance of a name or logo.

Conformance

Not applicable as a profile. This page documents brand-use policy; it implements no standard. The Apache License 2.0 is cited by name and clause (notably §6) for orientation; the LICENSE file in the core package is the authoritative text, and trademark rights are held by PATEON NETWORK TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED.