Talk:Trademark/Archive 1

Americocentric
This is Americocentric. It implies that trademarks only exist in the US, which I assume is not true. Tuf-Kat —Preceding undated comment added 26 February 2003

____________________

I agree above. Trademark laws have generic aspects which can be covered on the main page: the US law can go into a separate page (same as pages UK, Indian, PRC trademark law etc )

Unless anyone has an objection within the next week (by 30 April 2003), I'll hive off the US law into a separate page. - David Stewart —Preceding undated comment added 24 April 2003

Some sections seem to lack many references. Is this intentional to avoid making it Americocentric? American trademark law is fairly influential and informative, would it be cool to add the cases that developed the doctrine in the States? Arttechlaw (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Trademark images query
Can trademark images be included in Wikipedia? I mean, it's only logical to have a reproduction of the Coca Cola symbol in its page. -- Error —Preceding undated comment added 12 July 2003


 * In the US, I'd guess it's fair use. But why run the risk? We'd be better off from an educational perspective having in large font or as an image the two symbols "R with a circle" and "TM", along with an explanation of their meaning. - David Stewart 04:16 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing that the Coca Cola article should have a big TM instead of a Coca Cola logo? -- Error —Preceding undated comment added 14 July 2003
 * There is a specific image tag for this. See as on the Bass Red Triangle image. -- Solipsist 02:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not trademark infringement, since no one would think this page was being produced by Coca-Cola. (I'm also not sure why you have any obligation to use the (c) or TM symbols.) I don't think it's copyright infringement either because I believe trademarks generally are not copyright protected. I'll check on this latter point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radlsf (talk • contribs) 1 December 2005

I'm pretty sure a logo could be copyrighted as well as trademarked. It's arguable that including the logo to illustrate the point about trademarks would constitute fair use, but then again, if we can all get the same message across by talking about the logo in the abstract, maybe it's not necessary after all. In any event, the name "Coca-Cola" is a trademark, too, so whatever point would be made by reproducing their logo has already been made simply by mentioning their name. {subst:unsigned|Xrlq|14 August 2007}}

All images, especially logo's and other company-indentifying images are copyrighted in the first place, automatically. An action has to be taken to actually get a trademark, or in the case of the Coca-Cola-logo, a device mark. I see no problem in displaying the logo, just make sure that you post the following line with it: "the Coca-Cola (R) trade mark(s) are property of the Coca-Cola Corporation". If the logo isn't used for commercial reasons (which in this case it isn't), the Coca-Cola corporation wouldn't be able to fight placement of their logo under EU law by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.53.68.67 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Domain Names as Trademarks" section
The new "Domain Names as Trademarks" section is largely redundant. I'm leaving it in for now, but I think it could probably just be made into one sentence in the tms as domain names section, stating that domain names themselves can also be registered. The reasons why you would register a domain name or what kinds of domain names can be registered are not unique to that issue, but discussed throughout the overall tm article. Postdlf 2:00 5 Apr 2004 EST
 * The two sections are actually two different issues.

Perhaps it needs some reworking, but these are two different things. Cecropia 06:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * One deals with the question of whether holders of a registered trademark are entitled to pry a domain name away from a holder of a name that is similar to or identical to their mark.
 * "Domain Names as Trademarks" deals with the issue of whether Domain Names themselves can be trademarks (usually not).


 * I understand that they are two different things...that's why I put up the headers that I did on each. That's not what I was talking about in terms of redundancy--what I meant was that the issues involved in registering domain names as trademarks are pretty much the same as those involved in registering trademarks in general--i.e., the mark must actually identify the source, can't be generic or merely descriptive, etc.  While I do agree it is necessary to point out that those elements are present as well for domain name TM registrations, as written now, the section simply duplicates that information already present throughout the article as if those are issues unique to domain names.  I'm going to try a rewrite--hopefully my changes will show you what I meant.
 * Speaking of which, I'm sensing a bit of POV (or at least incompleteness) in the new header you put on trademarks as domain names, especially based on your summary of it above. It isn't just about "prying a domain name" away from the holder, nor is it about "using" a TM to "obtain" a domain name, which implies that the TM was adopted purely to gain control over the domain name.  Rather, the topic is about what happens when a domain name is registered that infringes someone else's preexisting trademark.  Transferring ownership of the domain name from the domain name registrant to the trademark owner is the legal solution.


 * I'm glad you included a link to passing off...I didn't even know there was a separate article for it. We need to try and think of a more obvious and central place in the article to point it out, though.  Postdlf 5:18 5 Apr 2004 EST


 * I see your point, now. I wasn't attempting POV in the header; I was trying to think of a header that would make the differene of the two paragraphs clearer when I was 75% asleep. Yours is much better.


 * I am aware of a case in Europe (involving domain name METROPLA.NET) in which the long-term domain name registrant says he was pressured by Metro stores to not use his domain name, but in the U.S., it is not so easy for a trademark owner to prevail in getting an already registered trademark unless it is a "famous" trademark and even then they might not prevail unless the TM is a coined expression, like Exxon. AMAZON.COM is one of the few domain names that is a registered trademark, yet the company has neither AMAZON.NET or AMAZON.ORG. Ty (Beanie Babies®) tried to get TY.COM away from its holder, but ended up purchasing it for an undisclosed sum.


 * I put in the Domain Names as Trademarks because it is a very common misconception that you can register a domain name as a trademark, but the rules make it much more difficult, at least in the U.S. Cecropia 16:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

® symbol
The ® symbol shows up as inline with text in the articles and in the edit box. Is this the way it is in most fonts? If so, should it be Superscripted®? It is that way in most logos, and it looks better to me just looking at it on this preview page. Could we also have a history or derivation of the symbol please? - Omegatron 23:40, 22 June 2004 (UTC)

Generic
For this reason, a generic term will not be protected (for example, "Apple" as used for apples), or, absent the development of public association with a particular source known as secondary meaning, marks that are merely descriptive of the goods concerned ("red" or "juicy" for apples), or those marks that are merely a surname or geographically descriptive.

How generic does the term have to be before it is covered by this? An American company has recently trademarked the term ugg boot, which is a generic Australian word for a sheepskin and fleece boot. thefamouseccles 10:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ref thefamouseccles's message: What is the exact legal status of the tradename Viagra? The drug firm tried to pass it off as an invented word. But it is a somewhat misspelled form of the Sanskrit noun "vyāghra", which means "tiger". Anthony Appleyard 12:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: "ugg boot" and "Viagra": Both would be considered "arbitrary" marks because they refer to a real word (or can be translated into a real English word) which has (virtually) no relationship to the trademark protected product. Under the Lanham Act, arbitrary marks are considered "inherently descriptive" and are afforded automatic trademark protection. "Apple Computers" is another example of an arbitrary mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.46.152 (talk) 8 May 2006

Footnoting
I've tried to fix up the footnotes a couple of times with no success. Could someone please take care of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.237.30 (talk) 6 January 2005

Trademarks used as nouns
The article currently states  The proper use of a trademark means using the mark as a proper noun referring specifically to the product, or as an adjective, not as a generic noun or a verb . I believe this is misleading or incorrect, in that trademarks should always be used as adjectives and never as nouns. Here is one example reference, there are many more I could list. If anyone knows differently, or if this is specific to US law, please elaborate. '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 11 Jan 2005


 * Not "misleading", as trademarks can be and often are, used as nouns, though they are "properly" proper adjectives. For instance, "I had a bag of Doritos yesterday" would be use of a trademark as a noun.  It is more commonly considered incorrect to use a trademark as a verb.  Peter O. (Talk) 23:14, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul O. Thanks for fixing my signature. I know that trademarks often are used as nouns, but my understanding is that this usage is just as incorrect as using a trademark as a noun.  I know the attorney at my former employer (a software company) was adamant that we had to refer to our products as ____ software or the ____ package or something similar.  In your example, I think the proper (but tedious) usage would be "I had a bag of Doritos-brand chips yesterday."  I did find some links that support my assertion.  They seem to be from "reliable" sources, but I'm not sure they are "definitive" sources.  I was hoping to find something on uspto.gov, but their FAQ seems to be concerned mainly with the process of how to receive a trademark approval, not with the process of maintaining proper usage.  Johntex 02:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, Newbie here (be gentle), U.S. trademark attorney. Use of a trademark as anything other than an adjective is incorrect, in the sense that it undermines the mark's distinctive value, and provides an infringer with the automatic defense that you have misused your own brand as a generic description. Some companies simply don't care, or actually hope their trademarks become the de facto generic brand for the service or product ("super size me!" at McDonald's, U.S. trademark registration 1896607, used as an imperative verb).  Does this help? Lupinelawyer 04:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Lupinelawyer. To say your reply was "helpful" is an understandment.  It was extremely helpful.  Thank you very much, and welcome to Wikipedia!   Johntex 04:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * One question that I have is "What can companies that own trademarks do if you use their trademark 'incorrectly' other than cease-and-desist letters?" For example, if I write "the inebriated staff spent most of the Christmas party Xeroxing various parts of their anatomy", either in a factual account, or a work of fiction, is there a chance that I could get sued by Xerox? gK ¿? 07:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Also: Could you take a look at my question at Talk:List of fictional brands gK ¿? 07:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using a trademark as anything other than an adjective is only incorrect in the sense that its a bad idea for the trademark holder. The idea is that if you allow Kleenex to become the common word for Kleenex, it will lose its trademark status because it no longer has secondary meaning. Thus, Tivo would prefer people say Tivo DVR, but there is no positive (as opposed to prudential) legal reason a trademark cannot be a noun etc. (I suppose Tivo might have some kind of dilution claim under the new law. Anyone know the answer to that?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radlsf (talk • contribs) 1 December 2005


 * I know trademark attorneys hate people using trademarks as verbs (fedexed it, xeroxed it, tivoed it, etc.), but the idea that you should never use it as a noun seems strange. If I have a meal at McDonald's, isn't it correct usage to say, "I ate at McDonald's® yesterday."? Superm401 - Talk 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Corporate counsel will ask, for the reasons Lupine mentioned above, that employees refer to the brand as an adjective: e.g., McDonald's brand hamburger restaurant. It is not incorrect for consumers to refer to the place by just it's brand name.  It is incorrect for anyone, however, to use the word trademark as a verb.  You do not trademark sometime.  You either register for a trademark or protect a trademark under common law.  The article could use distinguishing between which type of protection is meant by the current use of trademark as a verb.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoysite (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aqua Doodle - deletion proposal
The external link 'examples of conflict' reference to the 'Aqua Doodle' matter presents as a non-npov inclusion of subject matter for private reasons, and in particular, an attempt to use wikipedia to generate or publish 'use' of Mr Brandon's mark. Regardless of the authenticity or merits of the matter, there appears to be no legitimate reason for its remaining inclusion in the article, and I propose deleting it if there are no serious objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.237.30  (talk) 16 Feb 2005
 * Sounds like a good idea. Many people add inappropriate external links, and its not always obvious that they should be deleted. -- Solipsist 19:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Be bold and Delete.  Johntex 22:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Groundless threats of infringement
A couple of ideas for possible inclusion in the "Wrongful or groundless threats of infringement" section (I confess I'm not confident enough on the detail to write it myself). One is the issue of when ™ and ® symbols are necessary: companies often send nasty letters saying it's always mandatory, but major style guides say it isn't, in running text (see Talk:Penta_Water). Another, which also crops up in litigious letters, is the tale that trademark owners can ban reference to a trademarked name if they dislike the context. Is that true / false / partially true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygirvan (talk • contribs)  14 May 2005
 * In partial reply to Raygirvan: No, a trademark owner does not have a general monopoly on publication of a mark outside of commercial context. The ™ and ® symbols are almost never legally required, unless perhaps you are using the marks under a license that requires them. There is also some confusion as to whether a trademark has priority in one jurisdiction or another (e.g., a UK company complaining about a similar brand in the USA had better make sure its own USA usage pre-dates that of the alleged infringer). Lupinelawyer 02:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good questions, some going to the fundamental nature of trademark law and practice. Regarding the use of the symbols, consider the last paragraph of the Terminology and symbols section. Use of symbols only goes to the status of the rights being claimed, so is generally only an issue for trademark owners, not third parties. Regarding your second query: if X owns a registration for a trademark in relation to certain products or services, the use by Y of a similar mark in relation to products or services similar to X's may amount to infringement, provided there is a "likelihood of confusion" (subject to the particular jurisdiction concerned). If Y's mark and the products or services are the same as X's, there is generally no additional requirement to establish likelihood of confusion. Do you have any scenarios which may amount to an infringement? Now, there are generally also a range of defences or exceptions to infringement; one is comparison advertising. As a registered trademark may not confer any monopoly rights at all, a trademark owner generally cannot "ban" third party references to its trademark outside the context of infringement scenarios. 222.166.160.250 2 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)

This is heading off into "please seek legal advice" territory - don't assume that the USA rules apply elsewhere - the principles are usually similar but the devil is in the detail. Activity that would be defensible in Australia apparently may be infringing conduct in the USA. Can't speak for anywhere else but in Australia you don't lose protection by leaving out the symbols (in fact their presence is a dead giveaway of a foreign-controlled entity) nor even by not registering the mark at all.203.214.40.153 14:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Defenses to infringement
There are certain defenses to infringement not mentioned in the article - particularly First Amendment protection for parody (in the U.S.), and nominative use (e.g. using the term as a reference to compare your product to the trademark owner's). -- BD2412 talk 03:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can trademarks be used to identify products, you don't own the copyright of?
Please look at the current discussion about the business acts of the JBoss Inc. concerning the "open source" product JBoss.  Owning the trademark "JBoss" they demand a lot of money for allowing anybody to use this trademark to offer consulting services using this brand. Is it possible to introduce exclusive owner rights through the back door of a trademark this way, even despite the fact, that the software is based on the LGPL "open source" license and the copyright is shared among many developers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.155.48 (talk) 12 October 2005

Geographical, historical and common terms
I just checked the trademark office database and if you type even the most common terms from dictionary or books, you'll find them there - for example: there's a company Atlas (well, it's a mountain range in north Africa), Trias (it's a geological era) and even such obscure stuff like nothing more than a letter and numbers (try and search M100 in the trademark database - hell, even that exists). It looks like almost everything can be trademarked today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.189.183.197 (talk) 6 Nov 2005
 * (Note: this is not legal advice). First of all, trademark laws vary by country.  In the U.S., almost any word or phrase can be a trademark so long as it is not simply "descriptive" of the product.  For example, "crunchy" would be considered a poor name to attempt to trademark as a name of a crunchy breakfast cereral. Geographical references could be considered descriptive in some circumstances.  For example, if you are in Chicago, and you open a shop called Chicago Coats, you will probably not be granted a trademark because Chicago would be considered a descriptive term.  However, London Fog Jackets or North Pole Coats or Atlas Mountin Jackets or Atlantis Raincoats might be acceptable for you as trademarks because they don't really describe your business or product.  This can lead to grey areas, for example, what if you open Chicago pizza or New York pizza in Des Moins?  Are those terms descriptive of the type of pizza you will sell?  Here are some links you may find interesting:, , .  Note that things other than words can be trademarked, this can even include sounds, such as the sound of a Harley Davidson motorcycle. Johntex\talk 21:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Do the latest revisions now deal with this issue? 203.198.237.30 04:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just added a paragraph to deal with this more completely, including a link to Findlaw. Please let me know what you think. Johntex\talk 05:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Misc
Page mentions "(see also below under Policing Trademarks)" but no such section exists.206.207.111.69 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now dealt with by overhaul of relevant section (long overdue). 203.198.237.30 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Move
Trademark is not really the true name of this concept/law/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Trade mark is, as is referenced in the article itself. Commonwealth English is considered a sort of "consensus" on the English language. I tried to move it, but Trade Mark redirects here. I'd like to get some consensus before I dump Trademark into Trade Mark and redirect this page to Trade Mark.--Ljlego 22:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "consensus" on anything. The article originally used U.S. spelling and therefore U.S. spelling takes precedence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redeem (talk • contribs) 30 April 2006
 * what if it was written in ebonics...haha Owwmykneecap 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Special shops for maintaining trademarks
Hello. According to the article "Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual use of the trademark." I remember seeing on TV some years ago a segment on a 20/20 or 60 Minutes type show about trademarks. At one point in the show they visit a shop which "offered for sale" a variety of regular products (e.g. tampons) labeled with all these weird names that companies had invented but hadn't yet figured out what product to use it for. (Similar to "Domain parking/cybersquatting" perhaps.) Does anyone here know anything about this? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

slashdot

 * The HTML entity for the ™ symbol is ™, while the HTML entity for ® is ®. On a Microsoft Windows computer with American keyboard layout, alt+0153 types ™, while alt+0174 makes ®. On Macintosh computers, opt+2 for ™ and opt+r for ®, and their Unicode encodings are 2122 in hexadecimal/8482 in decimal for ™ and 00AE in hexadecimal/174 in decimal for ®.

Charming and amusing paragraph. This certainly is the encyclopedia made by Slashdot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.180 (talk) 9 August 2006

Contradictory sentences?
Can these two sentences be reconciled?

"Such efforts may or may not be successful in preventing genericism in the long run, which depends less on the mark owner's efforts and more on how the public actually perceives and uses the mark. In fact, legally it is more important that the trademark holder visibly and actively seems to attempt to prevent its trademark from becoming generic, regardless of real success."

They seem contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.59 (talk) 15 August 2006

iPhone?
Is iPhone an enforceable trademark? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.107.133.3 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, "IPHONE" has been registered in the EU, therefore making it enforceable. Both device marks and word marks have succesfully been registered. See the http://register.boip.int website for a search. (Bart) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.53.68.67 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge from trade dress
The article trade dress seems to contain redundant information with trademark. I would suggest a merge. --Edcolins 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point of view, but I disagree with the merger. They are related, but distinct concepts.Drc79 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell no! Trade dress is a separate and unique legal concept, with an enormous body of case law defining countours to the doctrine. A proper trade dress article would probably get big enough to split into sub-articles of its own! bd2412 T 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a patent and trademark lawyer and I agree that, while the concepts of trademark and trade dress are substantially related, there are sufficient differences between them to justify a separate listing for trade dress. Many of the concepts of trade dress do not directly apply to general trademarks, and trade dress has peculiarities and distinctions that warrant a separate article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dallaspatentlaw (talk • contribs).

Trademark: Symbol and Concept
Should there not be a separate page for the TM symbol, and the concept of trademarking something? --87.74.74.48 14:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Genericide - What if the term is still used almost exclusively when referring to usage of the trademark
I was reading the genericide section and got to thinking, what if the term is as a verb but still almost exclusively when referring to the trademark? Taking this from the article 'For example, Adobe sent e-mails to many web authors using the term "photoshopped" telling them that they should only use the term "modified by Adobe® Photoshop® software."' personally I and many other people I know may use the photoshopped in that manner but it would always be to refer to when Photoshop is used. I don't think I would use it if I edited the image with Gimp (which I've always found is pretty crap anyway). Perhaps an even better example is Google. Googling stuff is now pretty common but again, most people would probably use it when refering to Google. I wouldn't google something on MSN Live Search... Nil Einne 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you call a "Made in Country" mark?
What do you call a "Made in XXXX" mark, such as "Made in Germany"? This isn't a trademark, though similar. Could it be a MadeMark by analogy? JA. Tabletop 12:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference proposal
Creative Gifts, Inc. v. UFO found as referenced by Siegrun D. Kane in Trademark Law: A Practitioners Guide (2004)(ISBN 1402402279). Kane's book is an excellent reference and probably should be noted as such if there is agreement (and endorsement as such would not appear as "spam"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSCole (talk • contribs) 01:12, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Gentile Prods - Empire State Trademark
Does anyone know how the case of Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum v. Gentile ended? I can't find if it went to Supreme Court. Seems not. Ingolfson 07:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

statement on copyright expiration
The article states "in jurisdictions such as the United States, where patents and copyrights will eventually expire into the public domain". However, this has rarely ever become true. Originally it was what? Correct me if I'm wrong... 12 years? But now it's been pushed so far back that copyrights that were filed when that expiration law was passed are STILL valid. The only things that have fallen into public domain so far, are things that were explicitly released to the public domain, or things that the copyright holder doesn't care enough about to enforce. I don't know whether I'm suggesting the statement be removed or not, but I am saying that there has yet to be one example of it occuring, despite the fact that we are well past the expiration of the original term by a magnitude of many orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.141.144 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Directory in Trademark resources section
This article seems to be an expanding directory. See WP:NOT. I suggest deleting the Trademark resources section altogether. --Busy Stubber 16:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can street signs be trademarked?
I was a bit surprised to see a street named after Wal*Mart in the style of the trademark. Is an image such as this one subject to any trademark restriction? Mike Serfas 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

London Underground roundel
An image, Image:Underground no-text.svg, has been uploaded and its description page claims that it (a) is not copyright (b) is a trade mark.

I have doubts whether (a) is true, but supposing both (a) and (b) were true, would we be free to use this image in Wikipedia articles provided we didn't imply that the logo belongs to any organisation other than Transport for London? It has been suggested elsewhere that we would need the permission of the trademark owner to use the symbol.

(A similar image, Image:Underground.svg, uploaded by the same person, has been requested for deletion on copyright grounds.)--Dr Greg (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Going to split out distinctiveness into its own article.
I'm going to split out distinctiveness into its own article - there's much more to be said about it. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stupid/misspelt names due to trademark issues
The article could use a section on the effect of trademark law on naming products. A perfect example is Blu-ray, where "blue" is misspelt in order to make it trademarkable. "Blue Ray" is too generic, or may have prior trademarks. Another example is "Handi Pak" or in the UK the "LoCall" phone tariff (same cost as local calls). Mojo-chan (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have any such effect. Registrability relies not only on spelling, but also on sound and connotation. I think those are simply marketing gimicks. bd2412  T 05:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

aat273
just added a post on the Scandecor judgement of the UK House of Lords to show the evolving nature of trademarks and the new outlook being proposed to bare/ naked licensing of trademarks. It may be appreciated that the reference to the ECJ by the House of Lords was withdrawn prior to it being heard by the ECJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aat273 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Abandoning patent rights?
The following sentence is in the comparison section.


 * By comparison, patents and copyrights cannot be 'abandoned' and a patent holder or copyright owner can generally enforce their rights without taking any particular action to maintain the patent or copyright.

Is this really true for patents? I thought that if maintenance fees are not paid, patent protection is lost. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but the same applies for trademarks - if periodic renewal fees are not paid on time, a registration for a mark in use will nevertheless be cancelled. However, a patent or copyright will never be lost simply because the owner does nothing with the patented invention or copyrighted work. A trademark will be lost (even if renewal fees are paid) if it is not actually used as a mark in commerce for a long enough time. bd2412  T 05:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Invalid Reference
Reference #5, "Copyright and the Mouse: How Disney's Mickey Mouse Changed the World. DigitalJournal.com.", seems to lead to an article that doesn't exist any more; at least, I couldn't locate it at DigitalJournal.com. That's a particular shame, because it was exactly what I was trying to research: Trademarked characters in out-of-copyright fiction, and what usage is allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.254.86 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to work now FWIW. 85.76.28.252 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wearing Blinkers....
The majority of this article seems to have been written by people who are unaware that any country exists outside the USA. Most of this article is totally irrelevant to the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.117.239 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a mistake?
The first line says "A trademark or trade mark (represented by the symbol ™ or )[1] or mark is a distinctive...". Should there be something after the 'or'? Like the (R) symbol? I apologize if this was already mentioned, I didn't actually read the whole talk page before writing this...

Roboticus (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm - I removed the floating "or". Perhaps the editor meant to add the ®, but that means registered. bd2412  T 05:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talking about mistakes: In the section 2 - Oldest Trademarks - the mention of the salt mine there has several mistakes: the name of the mine is Wieliczka, it is located not in Czech Republic, but in southern Poland, near Cracow, and it also already has its own Wikipedia entry, so it probably should be linked there. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine). Don´t know anything about that claim that it is the source of the oldest known trademark, though.... but I rather doubt that there could be another mine of similar name in Czech Republic that could fit that description... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.101.186 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

9000 years!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.74.133 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In the SYMBOLS section, the last sentence states: "The proper manner to display either symbol is immediately following the mark in superscript as the fuck style." Is that next-to-last word some sort of technical term, or somebody being funny? 72.181.114.138 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

trade mark vs brand
Hi, could anyone help me. Both Indonesian word for trade mark and brand is merek, can anyone provide a brief distinction between trade mark and brand? I understand both are copyrighted... Serenity id (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there actually is a difference between "trade mark" or "brand", other than that a trade mark is always registered an a brand doesn't have to be registered (still a brand cán be registered). (Bart) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.53.68.67 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A brand is often a company name and a trademark is often just the name of a product. "Marvel Comics" is a brand but "Spiderman", "Hulk" and all the others are just trademarks.

NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Bringing back the ™ Unicode symbol
Why was the actual ™ symbol removed and replaced with a superscript version the individual letters "TM?" I don't think there are any major compatibility issues with different browsers/operating systems with using it. Besides, ® remains, why not keep ™ to maintain consistency? I believe that the actual trademark symbol is important.

(Plus, this page is where I copy and paste the ™ symbol from when I use it [and I'm sure many others do the same thing]). If it doesn't detract from anything, then why not keep it? --coolbho3000 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

translating trademarked names
Does trademark law have anything to say about how a company is referred to in a foreign language? As a silly example, is there a legal reason a French news organization cannot refer to Apple Inc. as "Pomme" ? --İnfoCan (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An inaccurate historical detail
Kept the SPQR when it became an Empire, even when the emperors dismantled the senate (the "S").

--- I don't think the Senate was ever formally dismantled. Can anyone check this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.133.90 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are IP addresses varies from one entry to another......????
See view history

(cur | prev) 03:30, 2 September 2010 59.151.98.135 (talk) (48,085 bytes) (→See also: - http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=trademark+search&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdt) (undo) (cur | prev) 03:06, 2 September 2010 222.64.20.243 (talk) (48,062 bytes) (Reasons for raising the topic -- http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+trademark+fraud&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0) (undo)

BTW, IP address shown on my internet connection is 192.168.1.2 --222.64.20.243 (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Function/Purpose of trademarks
At a glance it seems the article lacks a clear definition of the purpose of having trademarks in the first place. "The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products or services", but to what end? I didn't read the whole article through so maybe I missed it, but in that case it should probably be closer to the "Fundamental concepts" title or right at the intro, as it seems pretty essential to me. -Uusijani (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This article desperately needs images.
Seriously, Most readers would find this long article far more readable and engaging if it were illustrated. 67.142.172.24 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you register a trademark?
How do you register a trademark? Ussrruss (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHOWTO, but in the U.S. start at http://www.uspto.gov --CliffC (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't too technical
I disagree completely with the notice that this article is too technical. If you need to know about trademarks, the info here is just right. This explanation was easy to understand and provided exactly the info I needed--and I am no lawyer. If this page were watered down, it wouldn't provide the necessary information for the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.156.118 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. An IP editor tagged this over a year ago, and never initiated any discussion to elaborated on the basis for the tag.  I will remove it. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling - American x Commonwealth
Alternating American/Commonwealth spellings "license/licence" within a single paragraph in the "Usage" section somewhat disrupted my reading. Since such inconsistency might bother somebody else, I decided to bring that up before editing the text. It's my opinion that there should be some orthographic cohesion at least "locally" -- at the paragraph level. I couldn't find any WP guideline on that specific matter, so I think it's a question for more experienced users to discuss. MrIsland (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Under WP:ENGVAR, unless the article has ties to a particular region (and this one does not), the first variety of English used should be retained. In this case, that's American English.  According to WP:WIKIBLAME, the article used American varieties of "license" and "authorize" as early as April 3 and 27, 2004, respectively.  The British varieties of "licence" and "authorise" were first introduced some eight years later, on December 26 and 27, 2012 respectively.  Going forward, the article should be maintained using American English.


 * Note, while your edit here was almost perfect, you also "corrected" the spelling in a quotation. I've reverted that bit back. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification and proper correction, TJRC! MrIsland (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hiding the real producer
Hello!

Are there laws prohibiting one company from producing a brand that it sells as being completely separate from itself?

Example: "Company A" is well-known for producing "Brand A". All of a sudden it begins also producing "Brand B" but nowhere in its advertising, not even in the small print, is it mentioned that "Brand B" is linked in any way to "Company A". Only once you sign a contract for using "Brand B" do you find out that you are actually signing the contract with "Company A".

Is this some reverse type of passing off, or false advertising, or some other concept altogether? Is it legal, illegal, or a grey area?

Thanks in advance! BigSteve (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since no one is answering on this page, I'm re-posting the question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigzteve (talk • contribs) 7 June 2013


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an intellectual property attorney, foreign-made products must indicate their country of origin, and foods must list there ingredients, but I have never heard of a law that would prevent a manufacturer from selling a product in a way that conceals the involvement of that manufacturer. bd2412  T 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trademark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023225719/http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/February/other/christmas.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/February/other/christmas.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Mobile short describtion appears to be wrong
Hello, I was never active on Wikipedia, so i just use this here. I recently noticed that the short describtion in the mobile version does not fit. It mentiones something about the KKK, maybe some line of a song. I could be wrong, thus i do not know and do not dare to change it. However, I wanted to draw attention to it so that maybe someone more experienced might fix this. With kind regards. Thank you for your contribution to this magnificient website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.237.6 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)