> At 12:31 04-12-13, Michael Chapman wrote: > > >I would say "ambisonics" is a 'dictionary word' (though I haven't > looked > >in any dictionaries). > > > >Whatever, it has been in use a long time and unprotected. > > It doesnt hurt to ask, since it can be shown that the word has had > specific useage for a long time. > > > > >The withdrawal of the US application was possibly on the grounds that it > >could not be registered. > > OR either that Nimbus forgot or didnt have the funds to renew it. > > Again, it's worth enquiring.
IIRC there was an _attempt_ to trademark the word "ambisonics". That application was withdrawn. So "ambisonics" is not now and never has been a trademark (though it may have enjoyed some protection between application and withdrawal?). Anyone trying to register it now would (or ought to) get shown the door, just as anyone trying to register "physics" or "chemistry". Obviously though just as you can register a series of computers as "apple" (if you ignore The Beatles) ... you could arguably try and register a new variety of apples as "ambisonic" ... but that can't stop anyone calling an apple an apple or ... an audio thingy ambisonic. Michael > > David > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
