leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/19/88)
I seem to vaguely recall hearing somethiing to the effect that you cannot
trademark a "descriptive" term. (forgive the vagueness as it has been a
*long* time since I saw this)
ARC is about as descriptive as you can get given the DOS restriction on
file extensions...
In any case, I *do* recall that letting your trademark be used as a generic
term can result in loss of trademark status. Xerox used to regularly bug
magazines about writers using Xerox this way ("Marge, xerox a few copies of
this..."). Since until this lawsuit, there is little evidence that SEA was
actively seeking to prevent this, they may be in for a *real* shock if they
run into someone with the bucks to fight this in court.
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) (09/21/88)
In article <1682@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >I seem to vaguely recall hearing somethiing to the effect that you cannot >trademark a "descriptive" term. (forgive the vagueness as it has been a >*long* time since I saw this) Being unfamiliar with the copyright/trademark issues, I don't know if this is useful, but DataPoint has a trademark (and has had it since the '70s) on the word ARC. As reprinted from a current Datapoint Manual "Attached Resource Computer" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corporation. Registered in the US patent and Trademark office. "ARC" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corp.
keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (09/22/88)
In an earlier article someone writes:
<...DataPoint has a trademark (and has had it since the '70s)
<on the word ARC. As reprinted from a current Datapoint Manual
<
< "Attached Resource Computer" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corporation.
< Registered in the US patent and Trademark office.
< "ARC" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corp.
Well - that kind of puts an end to THAT question, doesn't it.
(Doesn't it?) (Get the hint, everybody?)
keithooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/22/88)
In article <3190@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes: >Being unfamiliar with the copyright/trademark issues, I don't know if this >is useful, but DataPoint has a trademark (and has had it since the '70s) >on the word ARC. As reprinted from a current Datapoint Manual > "Attached Resource Computer" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corporation. > Registered in the US patent and Trademark office. > "ARC" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corp. If DATAPOINT has indeed been using this as a trademark since the 70's, I wonder why it hasn't bothered to register their trademark. This leads me to believe that there have been challenges to their exclusive use of the letters, disallowing them to register it with the trademark office. If ARC has been in common use, I find it hard to believe they can have an exclusive right to use those letters in the same context. Mikki Barry
greg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Greg Bullough) (09/23/88)
In article <10117@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >In article <3190@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes: >>Being unfamiliar with the copyright/trademark issues, I don't know if this >>is useful, but DataPoint has a trademark (and has had it since the '70s) >>on the word ARC. As reprinted from a current Datapoint Manual > >> "Attached Resource Computer" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corporation. >> Registered in the US patent and Trademark office. >> "ARC" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corp. > >If DATAPOINT has indeed been using this as a trademark since the 70's, >I wonder why it hasn't bothered to register their trademark. This leads >me to believe that there have been challenges to their exclusive use of the >letters, disallowing them to register it with the trademark office. > >If ARC has been in common use, I find it hard to believe they can have >an exclusive right to use those letters in the same context. > ARC is also the trade name for "Aircraft Radio Corporation," which is (or was, last I checked) a subsidiary of Cessna Aircraft. They've been around, I think, since at least WWII, since a lot of the military gear of that era bears the designator "ARC." Their contemorary equipment has not been renowned for its reliability. Greg
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/23/88)
In article <3190@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes: <In article <1682@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: <>I seem to vaguely recall hearing somethiing to the effect that you cannot <>trademark a "descriptive" term. (forgive the vagueness as it has been a <>*long* time since I saw this) < <Being unfamiliar with the copyright/trademark issues, I don't know if this <is useful, but DataPoint has a trademark (and has had it since the '70s) <on the word ARC. As reprinted from a current Datapoint Manual < < "Attached Resource Computer" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corporation. < Registered in the US patent and Trademark office. < "ARC" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corp. No problem. Any number of companies can have the "same" trademark as long as they are for different *types* of product. SEA is using ARC as a trademark for some sort of archiving program. *IF* their trademark is valid, you can't use anything resembling that for your archiving program and maybe not for *any* kind of program. But Datapoint's trademark refers toa piece of *hardware*. Different markets... so no chance of confusion. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) (09/24/88)
In article <10117@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >If DATAPOINT has indeed been using this as a trademark since the 70's, >I wonder why it hasn't bothered to register their trademark. This leads >me to believe that there have been challenges to their exclusive use of the >letters, disallowing them to register it with the trademark office. >If ARC has been in common use, I find it hard to believe they can have >an exclusive right to use those letters in the same context. >Mikki Barry In regards to Mikki's question regarding DATAPOINT Coporations trademark, After further investigation, The following are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark office: "ARC", "Attached Resource Computer", "ARCNET". Is it possible for two companies to hold trademarks on the same name if the product is markedly different? -- Jeff Troeger @ Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 3153 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {philabs,randvax,csun}!ttidca!ttidcb!troeger or troeger@ttidca
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/25/88)
In article <b7qO8c9yLH1010GSGRM@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> greg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Greg Bullough) writes: >ARC is also the trade name for "Aircraft Radio Corporation," which is >(or was, last I checked) a subsidiary of Cessna Aircraft. They've been >around, I think, since at least WWII, since a lot of the military gear >of that era bears the designator "ARC." Their contemorary equipment has >not been renowned for its reliability. A trade name does not necessarily mean a trademark. Also, the same trademark can be used in different fields. For example, Cadillac the car and Cadillac cat food. Mikki Barry
hollaar@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee Hollaar) (09/27/88)
In article <3212@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes: >Is it possible for two companies to hold trademarks on the same name if >the product is markedly different? Yes. A trademark identifies goods, and when you register it you must state the goods that it is used to identify. On a broad scope, you indicate one or more categories, but your claim isn't on the whole universe of goods or even all of a category, just on the particular types of goods that you have already used with the trademark in interstate commerce. So ARC being used as a trademark for a piece of hardware may not block using ARC for a piece of software as long as people do not confuse them. Same goes for an aircraft radio company and a piece of software. Now perhaps there is an argument that ARC has become a generic description of a type of program, like many other former trademarks that aren't any more. (According to an ad from Xerox (tm) called "Once a trademark, not always a trademark": asprin, escalator, trampoline, raisin bran, dry ice, cube steak, high octane, cornflakes, kerosene, nylon, yo yo, linoleum, shredded wheat, and mimeograph.) Lee Hollaar University of Utah
rzahavi@gateway.mitre.org (Ron Zahavi) (09/29/88)
In article <1682@qiclab.UUCP> troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) writes: >> Is it possible for two companies to hold trademarks on the same name if >> the product is markedly different? I don't believe so, since the gun company just sued GM over the use of the name 'Barreta' SP? The argument is that by the use of the same name, one company is utilizing the 'good' name of, or familiarity with a product of another. I don't know, however, how this argument relates to actual words. I would be interested to find out what the trademark laws say about such words as 'Apple' or even 'Arc'. Apple is a fruit and Arc is used in math. Do companies have (OR SHOULD HAVE) the right to trademark these words. For example: I imagine one cannot make a printer and call it the 'Apple printer', but why couldn't someone open the 'Apple advertising agency'. Is there a law that distinguishes between 'real words, e.g. Apple' and 'invented words, e.g. Barreta' when it comes to trademarks?. Thanks, Ron. ============================================================================== Ron Zahavi (703) 883-5637 Mitre Corporation rzahavi@gateway.mitre.org 7525 Colshire Drive McLean, VA 22102 Go Terps! ==============================================================================
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (10/01/88)
In article <40404@linus.UUCP> rzahavi@gateway.mitre.org (Ron Zahavi) writes: }In article <1682@qiclab.UUCP> troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) writes: } }>> Is it possible for two companies to hold trademarks on the same name if }>> the product is markedly different? } } }I don't believe so, since the gun company just sued GM over the use of the }name 'Barreta' SP? . . . }I don't know, however, how this argument relates to actual words. }I would be interested to find out what the trademark laws }say about such words as 'Apple' or even 'Arc'. Apple is a fruit and Arc }is used in math. Do companies have (OR SHOULD HAVE) the right to }trademark these words. Note that when the Apple Macintosh came out, its manuals had the following notices: Macintosh is a trademark of McIntosh Laboratories, Inc. and is being used with express permission of its owner. Apple, the Apple logo, ..., are trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Other companies' documents always referred to Macintosh as a trademark *licensed to* Apple Compter, Inc. Apple clearly had to come to some arrangement with the manufacturer of high fidelity equipment before they could use "Macintosh" as the name of their new computer. UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463 INTERNET: levin@bbn.com
pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (10/02/88)
In article <30362@bbn.COM>, levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes: > > Other companies' documents always referred to Macintosh as a trademark > *licensed to* Apple Compter, Inc. > > Apple clearly had to come to some arrangement with the manufacturer of > high fidelity equipment before they could use "Macintosh" as the name > of their new computer. Actually, they only did so after McIntosh initiated legal action against Apple. Not that it matters.
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (10/02/88)
In article <30362@bbn.COM> levin@BBN.COM (Joel B Levin) writes: >Apple clearly had to come to some arrangement with the manufacturer of >high fidelity equipment before they could use "Macintosh" as the name >of their new computer. However, Cadillac the car and Cadillac dog food are both registered trademarks for their respective companies. Our attorney informed us that similar or identical marks are fine for products that are different enough. The arrangement Apple struck may have referred to an agreement with McIntosh to not contest their registration application for Macintosh. I am currently going through trademark registration myself and my desk is littered with similar marks, but have been informed that I can use mine because it is for computer networking software which is a far different product from the other marks. If another contests it, however, it will go into litigation, which is a pain in the neck. Out of curiosity... >INTERNET: levin@bbn.com Has bbn registered a trademark on the word Internet? My company, Internet Systems Corporation was using the word as an abbreviation on a product line since we believed it to be a word in common use. However, a company in Cambridge, NOT bbn told us that we could no longer do that because they had registered the trademark. Upon checking, we found that they had not. BBN's corporate attorneys may be interested in case they actually *do* try to register it. Mikki Barry
rwi@naucse.UUCP (Robert Wier) (10/03/88)
I would be interested in the agreement between McIntosh (the hi fi firm) and Apple regarding the Macintosh name. I guess probably the reason that the hi fi company got the agreement was because the names are so similar, and there is the possibility for confusion in the consumer electronics market. I wonder if the hi fi company got a set fee, or whether they have a per-item sold arrangement. If they just got a buck for every machine sold, that would still ring up to a hefty chunck of change considering the number of Macs out there. --Bob Wier in Flagstaff, Az. Northern Arizona University
rwi@naucse.UUCP (Robert Wier) (10/03/88)
I posted this awhile ago, but never saw it turn up on the system. Must have gotten thrown out into the bit bucket. My apologies if there are multiple copies floating around -- B.W. > In article <1682@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >>I seem to vaguely recall hearing somethiing to the effect that you cannot >>trademark a "descriptive" term. (forgive the vagueness as it has been a >>*long* time since I saw this) There was an interesting major legal battle going on in the late 70's when I was a grad student at Texas A & M, in College Station. There was a fairly large company there which delt with accounting and other paper-trail whatnot, and used computers extensively. Their name was "Agency Records Control", and there was a hot dispute with DataPoint in SanAntonio over who had rights to the ARC trademark. This was being fought out in the Texas Secretary of State office since it involved a dispute on a corporate name. Unfortunately, I don't know how it came out. - Bob Wier in Flagstaff, Arizona :