3 ms·

> What better way to argue against the absurdity of many patents and trademarks, in general, than to argue against some entity being able to trademark the most

> What better way to argue against the absurdity of many patents and trademarks, in general, than to argue against some entity being able to trademark the most common word in the English language! Except that argument seems to rest on a misunderstanding. They didn't trademark the word, they trademarked the word in a specific context (https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/universities/the-ohio-state-university/#88571984 https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/universities/the-ohio-s...): > IC 025. US 022 039. G & S Clothing, namely, t-shirts, baseball caps and hats; all of the foregoing being promoted, distributed, and sold through channels customary to the field of sports and collegiate athletics. FIRST USE: 20050800. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20050800. Frankly, the way they seem to use it is really odd (https://www.diehardsport.com/college-football/ohio-state-big-10/ohio-state-is-selling-hats-with-just-the-on-them/ https://www.diehardsport.com/college-football/ohio-state-big...). In English, "the" doesn't even really make sense as a standalone word, so I really doubt this trademark conflicts with anything.

ziddoap 4y ago
Funny enough, I actually know that it's in the context of clothing! Even better, I've spent a non-trivial amount of time dealing with trademark lawyers and getting a better grasp of trademark and patent law in the past several years -- so despite what some people seem to think, I'm not a complete idiot who is just misunderstanding everything. And I still think this is absurd.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Funny enough, I actually know that it's in the context of clothing! Even better, I've spent a non-trivial amount of time dealing with trademark lawyers and getting a better grasp of trademark and patent law in the past several years -- so despite what some people seem to think, I'm not a complete idiot who is just misunderstanding everything. You made none of that clear in your comment. Your comment read like you think no common words should not be trademarkable, so it would be interesting to know where you think the boundary should be and why it should be there. > And I still think this is absurd. We'll, to me, it doesn't seem any more absurd than Apple being able to trademark the word "Apple." The word identifies them in certain narrow contexts, so it makes sense that they can gain the right to prevent others from impersonating them in those narrow contexts, so long as any prior use is respected.

ziddoap 4y ago

Funny enough, I actually know that it's in the context of clothing! Even better, I've spent a non-trivial amount of time dealing with trademark lawyers and getting a better grasp of trademark and patent law in the past several years -- so despite what some people seem to think, I'm not a complete idiot who is just misunderstanding everything. And I still think this is absurd.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Funny enough, I actually know that it's in the context of clothing! Even better, I've spent a non-trivial amount of time dealing with trademark lawyers and getting a better grasp of trademark and patent law in the past several years -- so despite what some people seem to think, I'm not a complete idiot who is just misunderstanding everything. You made none of that clear in your comment. Your comment read like you think no common words should not be trademarkable, so it would be interesting to know where you think the boundary should be and why it should be there. > And I still think this is absurd. We'll, to me, it doesn't seem any more absurd than Apple being able to trademark the word "Apple." The word identifies them in certain narrow contexts, so it makes sense that they can gain the right to prevent others from impersonating them in those narrow contexts, so long as any prior use is respected.