3 ms·
I would never have guessed the term was trademarked. It seems far too generic. And if it was granted in the late 60s, that’s what 30 years after Superman? Shou
by MBCook 2y ago
I would never have guessed the term was trademarked. It seems far too generic.
And if it was granted in the late 60s, that’s what 30 years after Superman? Shouldn’t it have been common by then?
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoIt was. However trademarks, much like patents, are made as generic as possible in order to give the company as much control and value as possible. Tech Dirt is filled with articles of trademark trolling.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lupire 2y agoTech Dirt is an equally generic Trademark as Super Hero!
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoNot really? There’s not an entire genre of fiction titled “techdirt”, nor is it utilized by literally any other media company to market their goods. The only way for a trademark to be generic is if its utilized by large swaths of the market for advertising (i.e “Taco Tuesdays”) or is overly generic and descriptive (i.e. “crab fries”). Techdirt is neither utilized by large parts of the market nor is it generic and/or descriptive.
- ezfe 2y agoMarvel and DC were not the original holders of the term
- bawolff 2y agoTrademarks do not expire ever. The intended point of a trademark is essentially to prevent scams. E.g. nobody is allowed to sell something called an "apple computer" except apple. The interest doesnt change with time. (In contrast the theoretical point of copyright and patents is to allow people to recoup r&d costs. Eventually at some point the holder has had a fair shot at recouping the cost, so there is a time limit)
- Dylan16807 2y agoThe comment was not about expiration in any way, it was surprise that the trademark was granted long after the term had started being in wide use. Imagine if "PC compatible" got trademarked in 1997.
- bawolff 2y agoAh, you are right, i misread.
- amelius 2y ago> The intended point of a trademark is essentially to prevent scams. This is why I think that companies should lose their trademarks in case of scandals, e.g. privacy infringements or security breaches. This is a much better punishment than fines which are often just a slap on the wrist. And to the consumer, a scandal often feels similar to being scammed. A trademark is a symbol of trust. And companies who are not trustworthy should not be able to use it.
- MereInterest 2y agoAnd why trademarks should be dissolved in bankruptcy, not treated as a transferable asset. If there’s a break in continuity of the provider, then the public has no guarantees about the quality after such a break.
- j-bos 2y agoOh that's good. I would love to see someone pursue this as a legal claim.
- username332211 2y agoWhat sort of a break of continuity do you think happened in General Motors in 2009?
- redwall_hp 2y agoThey should also not extend to works of fiction, or individual products. Preventing other companies from impersonating your company is one thing, but I don't care if six companies make a Thinginator-o-Matic 9000.
- fph 2y agoFriedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch is from 1883.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]