4 ms·

Paris Hilton disagrees http://gawker.com/5648787/paris-hilton-owns-the-phrase-thats-hot-and-other-revelations-that-could-ruin-the-weather-channel http://gawker

Paris Hilton disagrees http://gawker.com/5648787/paris-hilton-owns-the-phrase-thats-hot-and-other-revelations-that-could-ruin-the-weather-channel http://gawker.com/5648787/paris-hilton-owns-the-phrase-thats... No matter how absurd, anything is possible. Welcome to 2012

tipiirai 14y ago
Wow. That's hot! Welcome to USA.
- jannelehtinen 14y ago
  Or maybe just Paris :P
lutusp 14y ago
> Paris Hilton disagrees That's not a good example. Consider "Sun Microsystems". Can "Sun" be protected? No. Can "Microsystems" be protected? No again. Can both together be protected? Yes, of course.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  > Can "Sun" be protected? Yes. Why do you think it can't? Recall that Apple has successfully gained and defended its trademark on the word "apple", easily as common a word as "sun", in the relevant industries it operates. "Time" is trademarked by TIME Magazine, and "caterpillar" by Caterpilllar Inc., the construction equipment company. Feel free to check yourself. Federally registered trademarks are publicly searchable on the USPTO website. You'll find not only the registration for the word APPLE, but if you do a design mark search, you'll find quite a few drawings of the sun are registered trademarks as well.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    >> Can "Sun" be protected? > Yes. Why do you think it can't? Because it cannot be protected, not that an agency won't issue a document to that effect. A company that expects to use a common word as a trademark can expect to have a public-relations nightmare on their their hands as they try to keep people from using the "protected" word for any other purpose. Examples abound -- even words that aren't everyday words lose protection over time. How successful has Xerox been in getting people to say "dry electrostatic copy"? How successful has Johnson & Johnson been in getting people to say "adhesive compress" instead of "Band-Aid? This isn't about law, it's about reality. Reality trumps law. The present controversy over software patents shows the degree to which people in the legal profession think they can prevail over reality. They can't -- not for long, anyway.
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      I gave you three examples of single common word marks that are currently protected and have been defended without courts declaring them generic words, which is the danger you're hinting at. How can you seriously write this response while ignoring three counterexamples already given? Do you know of any companies successfully selling their products under the Xerox and Band-Aid brands other than Xerox and J&J? In 'reality', as you put it, both companies have successfully had law enforcement intercept, destroy and file charges against counterfeiters of their products. A mark is effective 'in reality' as long as the courts are willing to defend it, and unlike those few high-profile software patent cases, a totally different area of law, these marks have all been upheld in court. It's really non-constructive to compare trademarks to software patents, too. There are no "trademark trolls", as a mark cannot exist without continual use in commerce. There are no uses of trademarks as proxy wars for attaining licensing agreements without running afoul of antitrust laws as the mobile phone industry is doing with patents right now.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > I gave you three examples You're missing the point. The only way a party holding a trademarked word can prevent its use for another purpose is if they can show that the use would hinder the first party's ability to conduct his business. Clearly not true here. That, by the way, was why Apple Computer and Apple Music coexisted so long without any kerfuffle -- different businesses, no chance for public confusion. Your argument is that people have defended single words used as trademarks. But that's a different issue. The present discussion is whether someone's successful use of "moot" as a trademark (one apparently not registered) will be interfered with by another party's use of the same word. A trademarked word is only a starting point -- the plaintiff must then show that another use of the trademarked term hurts his business and/or misleads the public. In a case like this, the burden is most definitely on the plaintiff. > How can you seriously write this response while ignoring three counterexamples already given? Because you haven't thought your position through and your examples aren't germane. The fact that single words have been defended as trademarks is not the issue. The issue is why, and under what circumstances, and whether those examples are germane to this case -- one in which the "plaintiff" hasn't even bothered to register the word as fair warning to others of his proprietary interest in it.

tipiirai 14y ago

Wow. That's hot! Welcome to USA.

jannelehtinen 14y ago
Or maybe just Paris :P

lutusp 14y ago

> Paris Hilton disagrees That's not a good example. Consider "Sun Microsystems". Can "Sun" be protected? No. Can "Microsystems" be protected? No again. Can both together be protected? Yes, of course.

dangrossman 14y ago
> Can "Sun" be protected? Yes. Why do you think it can't? Recall that Apple has successfully gained and defended its trademark on the word "apple", easily as common a word as "sun", in the relevant industries it operates. "Time" is trademarked by TIME Magazine, and "caterpillar" by Caterpilllar Inc., the construction equipment company. Feel free to check yourself. Federally registered trademarks are publicly searchable on the USPTO website. You'll find not only the registration for the word APPLE, but if you do a design mark search, you'll find quite a few drawings of the sun are registered trademarks as well.
- lutusp 14y ago
  >> Can "Sun" be protected? > Yes. Why do you think it can't? Because it cannot be protected, not that an agency won't issue a document to that effect. A company that expects to use a common word as a trademark can expect to have a public-relations nightmare on their their hands as they try to keep people from using the "protected" word for any other purpose. Examples abound -- even words that aren't everyday words lose protection over time. How successful has Xerox been in getting people to say "dry electrostatic copy"? How successful has Johnson & Johnson been in getting people to say "adhesive compress" instead of "Band-Aid? This isn't about law, it's about reality. Reality trumps law. The present controversy over software patents shows the degree to which people in the legal profession think they can prevail over reality. They can't -- not for long, anyway.
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    I gave you three examples of single common word marks that are currently protected and have been defended without courts declaring them generic words, which is the danger you're hinting at. How can you seriously write this response while ignoring three counterexamples already given? Do you know of any companies successfully selling their products under the Xerox and Band-Aid brands other than Xerox and J&J? In 'reality', as you put it, both companies have successfully had law enforcement intercept, destroy and file charges against counterfeiters of their products. A mark is effective 'in reality' as long as the courts are willing to defend it, and unlike those few high-profile software patent cases, a totally different area of law, these marks have all been upheld in court. It's really non-constructive to compare trademarks to software patents, too. There are no "trademark trolls", as a mark cannot exist without continual use in commerce. There are no uses of trademarks as proxy wars for attaining licensing agreements without running afoul of antitrust laws as the mobile phone industry is doing with patents right now.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > I gave you three examples You're missing the point. The only way a party holding a trademarked word can prevent its use for another purpose is if they can show that the use would hinder the first party's ability to conduct his business. Clearly not true here. That, by the way, was why Apple Computer and Apple Music coexisted so long without any kerfuffle -- different businesses, no chance for public confusion. Your argument is that people have defended single words used as trademarks. But that's a different issue. The present discussion is whether someone's successful use of "moot" as a trademark (one apparently not registered) will be interfered with by another party's use of the same word. A trademarked word is only a starting point -- the plaintiff must then show that another use of the trademarked term hurts his business and/or misleads the public. In a case like this, the burden is most definitely on the plaintiff. > How can you seriously write this response while ignoring three counterexamples already given? Because you haven't thought your position through and your examples aren't germane. The fact that single words have been defended as trademarks is not the issue. The issue is why, and under what circumstances, and whether those examples are germane to this case -- one in which the "plaintiff" hasn't even bothered to register the word as fair warning to others of his proprietary interest in it.