[net.legal] trademark protection

stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (06/15/84)

All the discussion about how vigorously companies protect their
trademarks reminds me of a Kleenex* TV commercial I once saw.  They
showed a tissue blowing across a park, and the announcer was saying
something like:

    "Most people who see a facial tissue littering the ground
     automatically think of it as a Kleenex brand tissue.  Please
     help protect our good name and don't litter."

On the surface the commercial was an anti-littering campaign, but its
real purpose was surely to protect their trademark by calling attention
to the fact that not all tissues are Kleenex brand.

----------
"Upholstery, when my baby sits up close to me
 That's supposed to be what our life is all about"

Bob Stewart
ihldt!stewart


*Kleenex is a registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark

colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (05/16/85)

["We'll have a saltire murrey in the fesse ..."]

> I was under the impression that the old heraldic 'two points of
> difference' rule was still in effect for trademarks.  Can anyone
> aknowledge/refute this?  Also, in heraldry it is clear what a 'point'
> is.  Are there any well-defined notions of 'point' for modern trademarks?

Not in the U.S.  "Confusingly similar" is the catch-phrase, and every
judge has a different threshold of confusion.
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel