"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:35:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> On 2003-10-06 20:53:56 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >trademark law doesn't allow us the same latitude for selective >> >enforcement that copyright law does >> >> Can you be more specific, please? I was recently challenged about >> this and cannot point at why this would be. > > Because a generic term cannot be trademarked. You can trademark "Coke" > but you can't trademark "Cola."
Err, "coke" is a generic term too. I think Coca-Cola is the trademark you're thinking of. > This makes sense because the point of a trademark is too allow for the > creation of a brand -- to associate the goodwill that an organization > creates with name that they slap on a product. So every time you buy a > "Coke" you can rest assured that you're getting something that the > Coke folks in Atlanta are willing to vouch for (for whatever that's > worth). Some refined charcoal? :p -- I'm sick of being the guy who eats insects and gets the funny syphilis.
pgpieizLolntu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
