On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > "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 is getting madly off-topic for this list but both Coca-Cola *and* Coke (and Vanilla Coke and Diet Coke and Cherry Coke and Coke Classic and lots, lots more) are registered many times (for many different use in many different areas ) by the Coca-Cola corporation. You can do search at http://www.uspto.gov to get an idea. Perhaps there is a point worth making here though. A trademark is connected to a particular type of goods which means that while Coke may be a trademark as it pertains to beverages, this doesn't necessary interfere with the words generic meaning in the area of power tools or narcotics (assuming for a moment that you could get a trademark for your "brand" of cocaine. Debian's trademark is only for "Computer Utility and Operating System Software" which, AIUI, means we probably can't control other groups ability to sell Debian soap or beverages. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/
pgpW5wKw87Y24.pgp
Description: PGP signature
