The Stick Worm Phenomenon

knock offs

Happens all the time...a few examples SkiDoo=snowmobile Xerox=copier
Winchester=lever action etc. etc.
ymmv of course

Kleenex, Aspirin....

"J Buck" wrote in message
...
knock offs

Happens all the time...a few examples SkiDoo=snowmobile Xerox=copier
Winchester=lever action etc. etc.
ymmv of course

J wrote:
Winchester=lever action


Actually, when I hear Winchester, I think 'hard drive'. Maybe I'm showing
my age, but the very first hard drive that recorded on both sides of the
disk was made by IBM and was a 60 meg unit. 30 megs on each side. IBM named
it the 30-30, which quickly became the Winchester in tech support circles.


Be that as it may, Kimberly Clark spends a fortune protecting the Kleenex
trademark, as does CocaCola with 'Coke', Polaroid with their company name,
etc., etc.

Sveral brand names have legally moved into the common domain because the
copyright owners did not do enough to enforce their rights. Aspirin and
Linoleum are prime examples. General Motors spent more money policing the
rights to their trademark Frigidaire name in the 50s than they made selling
refrigerators.

RichZ©
www.richz.com/fishing

Winchester=hard drive? Not a computer person (as you can tell from my
isp) but that would be the *last* association I would make LoL

Several brand names have legally moved into the common domain because
the copyright owners did not do enough to enforce their rights

Common domain meaning everyday verbal usage? I understand a company not
wanting their product name used for profit, but it would be pretty hard
for Bombardier to sue every guy who says to his buddy, "Bring your
Skidoo (whether it be a Polaris, Arctic Cat, Yamaha, etc.) up this
weekend and we'll hit the trails. And bring your Winchester and some
Kleenex. Oh, and Aspirin, too."

J wrote:
it would be pretty hard
for Bombardier to sue every guy


No, but they will send a nasty letter to a writer (and or publisher) who
uses a tradmarked name as a generic term, and have been known to sue (not
bombardier, specifically, but Kimberly Clark, Xerox and McDonald's for
sure) for repeated offenses.


RichZ©
www.richz.com/fishing

"RichZ" wrote in message
...
J wrote:
it would be pretty hard
for Bombardier to sue every guy


No, but they will send a nasty letter to a writer (and or publisher) who
uses a tradmarked name as a generic term, and have been known to sue (not
bombardier, specifically, but Kimberly Clark, Xerox and McDonald's for
sure) for repeated offenses.


Want an example of trademark protection gone wild? Look at Harley Davidson.
They tried to get copyright protectionf or the sound of their V-Twin motors
in order to try and stop other motorcycle manufacturers from making V-Twins.
LOL. They have been known to sue for on the old Microsoft look and feel
precedent many times.

I'll stick with the name stick worms.

Want an example of trademark protection gone wild? Look at Harley
Davidson

Billy Joel has trademarked Billy Joel. Lost all respect for the guy when
I heard that. (Not that I've been that big a fan since the late 70s)

Most people who rely on their name obtain a trademark. It only make sence.
What else would stop me from changing my name to Billy Joel and then
starting a singing career. Now, if my name was really Billy Joel and I
starting a singing career the trademark would not be enforcable. It would
need to be shown that I was making an atempt to enfringe upon the copywrite.
It's no different then a company trademarking the company name or logo. In
the case, "Billy Joel" _is_ the company name.

"J Buck" wrote in message
...
Want an example of trademark protection gone wild? Look at Harley
Davidson

Billy Joel has trademarked Billy Joel. Lost all respect for the guy when
I heard that. (Not that I've been that big a fan since the late 70s)

Bob wrote:
trademark protection gone wild?


Remember those photo developing places that were almost like oversized
kiosks in mall parking lots that were so prevalent 10 to 15 years ago? I
forget the name of the biggest chain of them right now, but Kodak sued them
over the use of "Kodak Yellow" as the primary color on their buildings.
FWIW, Kodak lost. Judge ruled that the entire spectrum of visible colors
was within the public domain. Even combinations of colors.


RichZ©
www.richz.com/fishing

There was a company in California called "Real Estate Trainers inc.",
They sued me for advertising my company name, "California Real Estate
Training"....The Judge laughed them out of the court house (actually
they never got to the court house, their lawyer finally did the right
thing and advised them they were paying him for a NO WIN situation). I
can see protecting a trade mark or copyright, but for me it would have
to be something blatant, and injurious!