RE: [techwr-l] RE: Trademarks: adjective and noun usage

Subject: RE: [techwr-l] RE: Trademarks: adjective and noun usage
From: "Nancy Smith" <smithcds -at- ici -dot- net>
To: "'Higgins, Lisa'" <LHiggins -at- carrieraccess -dot- com>, "'TECHWR-L, a list for all technical communication issues'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:57:55 -0400

Not protecting your company's trademark may not
affect householders or common-people usage, but it
opens up the possibility of a successful challenge
or trademark-takeover by a competitor. For example,
if Kleenex did not have sufficient trademark
protection, then Puffs could call itself Kleenex and
steal Kleenex's customers. Perhaps not a great
example, but you get my point -- apply it to
whatever business your employer is in!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bounce-techwr-l-10572 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
> [mailto:bounce-techwr-l-10572 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com]On
Behalf Of Higgins,
> Lisa
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 12:46 PM
> To: TECHWR-L, a list for all technical
communication issues
> Subject: [techwr-l] RE: Trademarks: adjective and
noun usage
>
>
> I agree that it sounds silly to say "Jell-O brand
gelatin
> dessert," and
> "Kleenex brand tissues" and stuff like that.
Apparently,
> though, certain
> lawyers believe that this is a fairly effective
defense
> against trademarks
> entering common usage. This is something I really
don't
> understand. Despite
> the valiant efforts of Xerox, Band-Aid, Tylenol,
and so
> forth, they're all
> used generically. It may simply be a matter of
being able to
> prove that
> you've *tried*. I think it's something like an old
wives' tale. An old
> lawyers' tale or something. I mean, why don't they
say, "Whopper brand
> hamburger sandwiches"? It doesn't sound any
stupider than
> "Band-Aid brand
> adhesive bandages" or whatever.
>
> Regardless of any kind of legal concern for
trademark
> protection, though, I
> would ask myself, "What are the chances?"
>
> I know that the things I work on aren't exactly
household
> objects, and I'd
> consider it VERY unlikely that any of the
trademarked terms I
> work with
> would come to mean anything in a generic sense. So
I don't
> worry about it.
>
> Besides, it sounds REALLY DORKY. And I'm COOL, NOT
DORKY.
>
> Lisa.
>
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^
> Sponsored by Weisner Associates Inc., Online
Information Services
> As a leading service provider to technical
writers, we are
> proud to sponsor
> TECHWR-L. Visit us at http://www.weisner.com or
> mailto:info -at- weisner -dot- com -dot-
>
> Sponsored by ForeignExchange
> (http://www.fxtrans.com)
> Rely on ForeignExchange for responsive and
professional
> software localization and technical translation
services.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
smithcds -at- ICI -dot- NET
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Previous by Author: RE: Trademarks: adjective and noun usage
Next by Author: RE: 60 Hours per Week at Level 1 Process Maturity
Previous by Thread: Re: [techwr-l] Re: Trademarks: adjective and noun usage
Next by Thread: PDF Question


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads