Re: Trademark

[P3D emdesher <emdesher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, P3D Marvin Jones wrote:

> > Marvin Jones is correct in both cases that one doesn't need
> > anyones permission to utter the very name of any trademark. The only
> > problem with that is that in P3D it's kind of a gray area since this is not
> > strictly private conversation between two people. I am not a lawyer but if
> > anybody can clarify this matter it is relevent to this group in general
> > since alot of 3D stuff we use have registered trademarks. For example in
> > my correspondance with Wrebbit, in regards to their 3Discover, they have
> > maintained that 3Discover is registered as a trade mark. Now they also
> > include (tm) after the 3Discover name in their correspondence as follows.
> > 3Discover(tm). Now does that mean we will have to include (tm) after every
> > View-Master, 3Discover, 3DMagic, Tru-Vue ,Realist, Tom, Dick, and Harry.
> 
> Of course it is in the best interest of a corporation to protect their
> investment in a trademark, and toward that end they are, I believe, required by
> law to identify the trademark as such whenever they use it--hence the (tm) after
> 3Discover (although in correspondence it's probably a little overkill, although
> in advertising or public uses it is not). The primary concern, as we've noted,
> is to keep a tradename from becoming generic, like xerox, kleenex, scotch tape
> and so forth, thus eventually costing the originator his trademark status. It is
> not incumbent upon anyone unrelated to the corporation to include such trademark
> recognition whenever they mention the name, and of course as I said in the
> original post, it is most certainly not necessary for us to request permission
> (or for a legitimate trademark holder to offer permission) to speak the name in
> public conversation!
> 
> 
This matter over the use of a trademark is generating more controversy 
than I ever thought would happen.  Perhaps my original posting was 
unclear in its intent; I never meant to imply that you needed my 
permission to utter the EMDE trademark in your private conservations.  The 
problem, from the viewpoint of a trademark holder, is that the 
Trademark Office is very strict in its requirements in how a trademark is 
maintained-any published trademark name MUST be identified as such.   
Even non-holders of the trademark must respect its status, after all 
that's the rationale for having a mark.  For example, Burger 
King and McDonald's are constantly belittling each other's burger, but 
you will notice they always include an indication of the other's 
trademark status.  If they didn't, they would be liable for some stiff 
civil actions.  You could say that EMDE is the worst stereo product ever 
designed, made, and marketed, and as long as the trademark status was 
acknowledged, I would have no legal basis for complaint.  One problem 
with the P3D is that it could be construed as a publication, as something 
more that mere speech.  Postings are sent to over 1,000 list members, over 
public channels, and not privately addressed to a particular person.  Yet 
every day mention is made of a trademarked name, e.g. Kodak, Fuji, etc.,
and it would be difficult to require everyone to add "Reg. U.S. Pat & 
Trad. Off." after each brand mane.  So it was merely my intent, after the 
issue was raised, to make an one time posting of its legal status, and 
leave it at that.  If anyone wished to challenge its status, well that's 
what the courts are for, to settle disputes.  Such challenges should have 
been addressed to me personally, and not to offer unqualified opinions 
through the P3D.  Enough of this, let's move on.  Dennis Sherwood 


------------------------------