User talk:Alligunz

This account appears to be solely for the purpose of adding advertising material to Wikipedia, a violation of our policy against improper external links, and also a violation of our conflict of interest guideline. I'd offer you a welcome, but someone who creates a wikitable with the first couple of edits doesn't appear to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Trademark
You wrote: I am actually a trademark and copyright attorney. I was adding content for my client. The external link I will remove, but it does not appear to harm anyone to have who the manufacturer of the product that is protected by IP rights is, see Coca Cola, Kodak and the like. I am new to Wikipedia and spent a LOT of time making that table. Why was it removed?


 * I see nothing in the articles Coca-Cola and Eastman Kodak that mentions or implies "IP rights"; would you mind pointing out the wording or phrases that you have in mind?


 * If in fact the word "Sleepsack" is trademarked (I'm doubtful, given Web pages like this and this, which come up near the top of a Google search), a link to a web page describing the trademark would be appreciated.


 * Finally, a rule to keep in mind (which you have not violated; I point it out as a preventive measure): No legal threats. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information
Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia. TM stands for the fact that the mark has an application pending before the USPTO. You can look it up there.

Coca Cola has a link to their Wikipedia page and talks about the manufacturer of same. Just let me know what edits that I just made are no OK and with proper reasoning, I will remove the violating content. I just want to make sure that my client's rights to the word mark are protected or at least referenced.

Thank you.


 * When a topic is notable enough to have an article, then the article has a link to websites associated with the topic, whether that's a manufacturer or a Facebook page for a (notable) band. It's not at all clear that HALO is a notable enough company (as evidenced by reliable sources to have its own article, so I really don't think that the situation is analogous.


 * I've reworked the two pages to eliminate the inappropriate table (we have standards here, for example, for what we call disambiguation pages, for example). I'm not sure that other editors will agree that the company and its trademark are entitled to such prominence, but that's another matter. If you aren't satisfied, I'll ask other editors for their opinion.


 * I note, by the way, that when a magazine mentions Coca-Cola, they don't say "Coca-Cola TM", they just say "Coca Cola" . Or, for example, in this NY Times article, the writer does not say "Zune TM" or "iPod TM". So I really don't understand why you think that you need to slap "TM" after each mention of Sleepsack. Wikipedia doesn't do that for other products, and if you insist you legally have to do so, I'm afraid (as noted above) that will just end the discussion. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Famous Marks vs. Not Famous Marks
When a mark is famous, there is no need to put the TM, like in CocaCola and iPod. The Zane product is preceded by language that says its Microsofts. Noone misunderstands that they could use that word for other products. Here, the TM simply stands for the fact that there is a pending application. Can I put the TM? Otherwise, I appreciate you taking time to "fix" the pages. Are you a wikipedia employee?


 * I've never seen a "TM" on a Wikipedia page, so I'm afraid I can't agree to that. And no, I'm not a Wikipedia employee - the Wikimedia Foundation has around a dozen employees, none of whom are involved in editing pages. Wikipedia is pretty much a self-governing community; I'm just another editor here.


 * There are a number of places to ask questions at Wikipedia, ranging from the help desk to various discussion forums]. If the current wording that I placed on the two pages isn't what you consider to be satisfactory, I'll be happy to post a question elsewhere. I do think I've done about as much for you as the community is likely to do, and it's possible that other editors are going to draw the line at a different point, but I could be wrong. You are more likely to get a definitive response if I ask other editors to get involved. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this ok
I talked with my client yesterday. Can you check on the minor edits I made now. I think they are ok, if you want to add in the links to the Halo Innovations website and the trademark application. Otherwise, I would like to just go back to how the pages were originally. I don't want to give too much information on my client's application. Thoughts?