3 ms·

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

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.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  My examples were germane to the comment I was replying to, which was about whether "sun" could be protected, which in turn was a reply to discussion of Paris Hilton. We're far removed from the specifics of moot's claim... why you thought that was the topic of my reply is beyond me.

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.

dangrossman 14y ago
My examples were germane to the comment I was replying to, which was about whether "sun" could be protected, which in turn was a reply to discussion of Paris Hilton. We're far removed from the specifics of moot's claim... why you thought that was the topic of my reply is beyond me.