3 ms·

> "All trademarks are the property of their respective owners" This is another piece of folk-law voodoo, in that, one, it is not required by any law, and, two,

by derleth 15y ago

> "All trademarks are the property of their respective owners" This is another piece of folk-law voodoo, in that, one, it is not required by any law, and, two, it does not make anything legal that would be illegal otherwise.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
It indicates you're not using the disclaimed marks to indicate origin of goods and services you are offering. If the marks are shown alongside a notice disclaiming ownership then a registered trademark owner can't (mitigating circumstances excepting) claim that you're attempting to pass-off using their mark. I'd be surprised if it wasn't implemented to avoid claims that mere presentation of marks were uses of the trademark. Of course if the language works then there may not be caselaw to support this as litigants could have been put off suing in cases using such a disclaimer. Are you working in TM law in some form in some jurisdiction? IANA(IP)L (nor working in IP presently). As a related aside the UKIPO practice on RTM in patent specifications is of interest [to me]. Generally the examiner would [I'm a little out of date], IIRC, attempt to [get the applicant to] excise all registered trademarks that weren't essential to the understanding of the piece. Any remaining marks were to be labelled in the spec with "RTM" (for Registered TradeMark). So far as I could ascertain there was no legal requirement to do this it was just pushed as best practice. Note RTM in the UK was the legal manner and not use of ®. Labelling a mark as "ExampleTrademark RTM" is pretty much the short-hand equivalent of saying "this trademark belongs to it's owner [and not us]".
- derleth 15y ago
  > It indicates you're not using the disclaimed marks to indicate origin of goods and services you are offering. You indicate this by doing it. Merely mentioning a trademark someone else owns doesn't infringe on any of the rights owning a trademark gives you. > If the marks are shown alongside a notice disclaiming ownership then a registered trademark owner can't (mitigating circumstances excepting) claim that you're attempting to pass-off using their mark. The standard of trademark infringement is confusion; having a product that is labelled confusingly is illegal regardless of what disclaimers you have, having a product that is not confusing is legal even with no disclaimers. Trademark dilution is a bit broader but, even so, just mentioning a trademark is not dilution. You still have to use it to advertise your own product. Here is a good overview of trademark law: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >"having a product that is labelled confusingly is illegal regardless of what disclaimers you have" // There's the rub. The disclaimer is the label that [attempts] to remove the confusion of the product with anything which may have originated with the mentioned marks owner. This statement belies a position of ignorance of legal reality. You're basically saying that in TM law there is no middle ground or gray area between confusion and clarity of use of marks. There is, of course, and disclaimers simply attempt to ensure that ones position on the right side of the line is made obvious. Why do you feel a disclaimer does not speak towards excision of confusion? I note you didn't answer my question of your credentials?
jdietrich 15y ago
Practical example: Lots of professional audio equipment is designed to digitally emulate analog equipment. There have been a number of lawsuits, usually hinging around "passing-off" - companies are justifiably unhappy with their trademark being used on someone else's equipment, even if it doesn't resemble anything they manufacture. There is precedent for companies being successfully sued for using trademarks on the equipment itself, but precedent to the contrary for those trademarks being used to describe the character of the equipment. It is therefore commonplace to buy a guitar amplifier that has an "American Tweed" setting, but for the user manual and publicity materials to describe that setting as an emulation of a 1958 Fender™ Champ™.

by derleth 15y ago

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

It indicates you're not using the disclaimed marks to indicate origin of goods and services you are offering. If the marks are shown alongside a notice disclaiming ownership then a registered trademark owner can't (mitigating circumstances excepting) claim that you're attempting to pass-off using their mark. I'd be surprised if it wasn't implemented to avoid claims that mere presentation of marks were uses of the trademark. Of course if the language works then there may not be caselaw to support this as litigants could have been put off suing in cases using such a disclaimer. Are you working in TM law in some form in some jurisdiction? IANA(IP)L (nor working in IP presently). As a related aside the UKIPO practice on RTM in patent specifications is of interest [to me]. Generally the examiner would [I'm a little out of date], IIRC, attempt to [get the applicant to] excise all registered trademarks that weren't essential to the understanding of the piece. Any remaining marks were to be labelled in the spec with "RTM" (for Registered TradeMark). So far as I could ascertain there was no legal requirement to do this it was just pushed as best practice. Note RTM in the UK was the legal manner and not use of ®. Labelling a mark as "ExampleTrademark RTM" is pretty much the short-hand equivalent of saying "this trademark belongs to it's owner [and not us]".

derleth 15y ago
> It indicates you're not using the disclaimed marks to indicate origin of goods and services you are offering. You indicate this by doing it. Merely mentioning a trademark someone else owns doesn't infringe on any of the rights owning a trademark gives you. > If the marks are shown alongside a notice disclaiming ownership then a registered trademark owner can't (mitigating circumstances excepting) claim that you're attempting to pass-off using their mark. The standard of trademark infringement is confusion; having a product that is labelled confusingly is illegal regardless of what disclaimers you have, having a product that is not confusing is legal even with no disclaimers. Trademark dilution is a bit broader but, even so, just mentioning a trademark is not dilution. You still have to use it to advertise your own product. Here is a good overview of trademark law: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >"having a product that is labelled confusingly is illegal regardless of what disclaimers you have" // There's the rub. The disclaimer is the label that [attempts] to remove the confusion of the product with anything which may have originated with the mentioned marks owner. This statement belies a position of ignorance of legal reality. You're basically saying that in TM law there is no middle ground or gray area between confusion and clarity of use of marks. There is, of course, and disclaimers simply attempt to ensure that ones position on the right side of the line is made obvious. Why do you feel a disclaimer does not speak towards excision of confusion? I note you didn't answer my question of your credentials?

jdietrich 15y ago

Practical example: Lots of professional audio equipment is designed to digitally emulate analog equipment. There have been a number of lawsuits, usually hinging around "passing-off" - companies are justifiably unhappy with their trademark being used on someone else's equipment, even if it doesn't resemble anything they manufacture. There is precedent for companies being successfully sued for using trademarks on the equipment itself, but precedent to the contrary for those trademarks being used to describe the character of the equipment. It is therefore commonplace to buy a guitar amplifier that has an "American Tweed" setting, but for the user manual and publicity materials to describe that setting as an emulation of a 1958 Fender™ Champ™.