NationStates Jolt Archive

For nearly six months, Erwin Giesbers has gazed every day at the cheerful company flags flapping in the breeze and pondered the hazards of choosing official corporate colors in a screaming shade of magenta.

His company, Compello - an information technology firm in the Dutch town of Zwolle - is locked in a legal struggle with the German giant, Deutsche Telekom, which is pressing the company to get rid of the vivid hues because it claims trademark rights to the color magenta.

That is just ridiculous...

Linky (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/16/technology/STRIPE17.php?WT.mc_id=techalert)

you can copyright a colour? cool, i goina copyright red and sue coca-cola!
this is just a little dumb in all reality, they did not create the colour, so what right do they have to copyright it!
:headbang:

Oh an random related comment but two stripe addais was slang for knock off gear when i was young (at least in Plymouth, England)

Anger for corporate man...rising...

C://EXECUTE "BOLSHEVIK BOLOL"

you can copyright a colour?Trademark. And apparently so.
I say we boycott anyone who tries. But then, I don't own a phone anyway.

The point would be moot if the Germans won WW2, but seeing as they didn't, I say: Arrr, go fuck yourself, Deutsche Telekom.

Next companies will want to trademark letters.

Also, does Apple have apples trademarked?

The point would be moot if the Germans won WW2, but seeing as they didn't, I say: Arrr, go fuck yourself, Deutsche Telekom.

Congratulations. That was a stupid post.

Click Stand;13536568']Next companies will want to trademark letters.

Also, does Apple have apples trademarked?

No the beatle's (band) do!

Congratulations. That was a stupid post.Aha, made you quote me. *laughs in general direction*

So.... we can trademark colours now? Dibs on black! :)

So.... we can trademark colours now? Dibs on black! :)

Fine, I'll just trademark dark grey. Or maybe light black...

So.... we can trademark colours now? Dibs on black! :)

I trade mark #000001

hehehehehe

I fully intend to copyright the numbers 1 and 0 someday. Every time one of those numbers was used, my account would be automatically wired a tenth of a cent. I'd be a multimillionaire within minutes. :D

Trademark for Colour Magenta?
huh?
I guess alot of artists are in trouble then, either that or this is really stupid, or Magenta doesn't exist, but i know it does so meh.
Fun fact: Magenta was a Battle in the Italian unification process fought by the Piedmontese and French forces against Austria after the Treaty of Plombieres, battle in 1859, after this and the battle of Solferino Napoleon the 3rd withdrew his French forces for political reasons. Also the battle was a huge loss of life and thus blood, possibly where the colour Magenta was named after. Sorry i'm studying Italian unification, so i sort of spill out info, my bad.:cool:

Click Stand;13536701']Fine, I'll just trademark dark grey. Or maybe light black...

With truecolor there's 16,777,216 colors to trade mark. Go ahead and pick one ^_^

I trade mark #000001

hehehehehe

Fine, as long as #000000 is mine... all mine!! :D :D :D

Fine, as long as #000000 is mine... all mine!! :D :D :D

*Rushes off and trademarks #000000 - # 000999*
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Sinister.gif

I claim everything between #002000 and #006000.

Edit: #000999 makes no sense; colors are recorded in hexadecimal. Maybe you want #0000FF?

Having actually read the article it looks like, unless there's a decent chance of confusion amongst consumers, DT doesn't really have a leg to stand on. In fact, it sounds like they're fighting a different battle.

One of the things about trademarks is that if a company doesn't protect it then they lose it. So, even if DT doesn't really think Compello's use of magenta is a problem, if they don't put up the show of trying to protect the copyright then another company can use this lack of action against DT in an eventual copyright fight between that other company and DT.

But if other shoe makers can use TWO stripes that slightly resembles Adidas' THREE stripes, then I doubt DT will win this fight should it ever go to court. Unless Compello has created a look that really resembles DT, they'll probably lose. (IANAL nor do I play one on television; also there is a ruling expecting from the highest EU court on the Adidas issue in April that may clarify things.)

I claim everything between #002000 and #006000.

Edit: #000999 makes no sense; colors are recorded in hexadecimal. Maybe you want #0000FF?
Hex is 0-9, A-F....

I claim everything between #002000 and #006000.

Edit: #000999 makes no sense; colors are recorded in hexadecimal. Maybe you want #0000FF?

I am aware that they are recorded in hexadecimal, do you know what hexadecimal is? I'm thinking the answer is no...

Click Stand;13536568']Next companies will want to trademark letters.

Also, does Apple have apples trademarked?
Apple lost that lawsuit.

You want stupid:

A Chocolate manufacturing company in New Zealand has copywrited the right to use the colour purple on candy bars in NZ

You want stupid:
No, actually, I don't...
A Chocolate manufacturing company in New Zealand has copywrited the right to use the colour purple on candy bars in NZ
That's no better or worse than the story I linked to, assuming it is true

You want stupid:

A Chocolate manufacturing company in New Zealand has copywrited the right to use the colour purple on candy bars in NZ

You're right, that is incredibly stupid, for a bunch of reasons. The first of which is that copywriting has absolutly nothing to do with obtaining a copyright. So why they would go through copywriting on a purple wrapper I don't know, when they should go get a copyright.

Secondly, even if they could figure out the difference between copywrite and copyright, that's a pretty stupid company to try to get a copyright instead of a trademark which is the appropriate thing to do.

Yup, that is a pretty stupid company because they didn't know the difference between copywrite and copyright, and didn't know they wanted a trademark, not a copyright.

Or, you know, the company was exactly correct when they pursued a trademark and the quoted poster has no understanding of intellectual property laws.

Or, you know, the company was exactly correct when they pursued a trademark and the quoted poster has no understanding of intellectual property laws.

I'd bet on this one being correct...

You're right, that is incredibly stupid, for a bunch of reasons. The first of which is that copywriting has absolutly nothing to do with obtaining a copyright. So why they would go through copywriting on a purple wrapper I don't know, when they should go get a copyright.

Secondly, even if they could figure out the difference between copywrite and copyright, that's a pretty stupid company to try to get a copyright instead of a trademark which is the appropriate thing to do.

Yup, that is a pretty stupid company because they didn't know the difference between copywrite and copyright, and didn't know they wanted a trademark, not a copyright.

Or, you know, the company was exactly correct when they pursued a trademark and the quoted poster has no understanding of intellectual property laws.

Gee, have a bitch next time Neo Art, chill man no need to go on a rant because some body misspelt a word and got confused with copyright and trademark. There are more constructive ways to tell him rather than putting him down

I think he may be refering to the fact that the NZ company ensured that it could place purple on its wrappers so Cadbury won't swoop in and say that the colour is theirs and only they may use it.

The same thing happened in Australia a few years ago, a very old chocolate company called Darrell Lea which has been operating in Australia since the 1920's always had purpule as their colour and was the backdrop over their name.

Cadbury came along and took them to court over it saying that Purple was a trademark of Cradbury-Shcweppes, the courts sided with common sense for once and allowed Darrell Lea to use the colour purple. Due the case Darrell Lea changed from purple to a light blue and hasn't changed back which is a shame.

Anyway I don't think companies should be allowed to trademark colours or other general things.

I call #FF0000 and #0000FF.

Click Stand;13536568']Next companies will want to trademark letters.

Also, does Apple have apples trademarked?

I CALL THE VOWELS!!

*runs to patent office*

I CALL THE VOWELS!!

*runs to patent office*

I call the alphabet.
oh my i'm going to get alot of money from the internet now.
*evil grin*

I am aware that they are recorded in hexadecimal, do you know what hexadecimal is? I'm thinking the answer is no...

I know that #000999 is an actual color (sort of an average blue), but it's an arbitrary stopping point. But fine! Have your blues and blues-with-unnoticeable-hints-of-green! Me and my forest greens will surely sell better!

That is just ridiculous...

Linky (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/16/technology/STRIPE17.php?WT.mc_id=techalert)
The ridiculous part is that the story doesn't have a picture of either contentious iitem. How do you judge trademark infringement if you can't see the things that are supposed to be similar?

Or, you know, the company was exactly correct when they pursued a trademark and the quoted poster has no understanding of intellectual property laws.
A little ignorance goes a long way. Especially in IP. Just imagine a team of in-house counsel trying to explain patents to a bunch of engineers...

And they did a good job, we figured it out, and we started patents on a few new things. It's a shame we didn't patent a few old things when they were new, though.

you can copyright a colour? cool, i goina copyright red and sue coca-cola!
this is just a little dumb in all reality, they did not create the colour, so what right do they have to copyright it!
:headbang:

Oh an random related comment but two stripe addais was slang for knock off gear when i was young (at least in Plymouth, England)

The music artist Prince copyrighted his name for quite awile, granted, the word "prince' was still allowed, but legally everyone had to refer to him as: "The artist formerly known as Prince" which is ridiculous, and when I was younger I always questioned what the deal was.

I understand in a vague sense where Deutsche Telekom is coming from... but it's still a ridiculous idea, it's not like the company is using the Magenta "T" or anything.

You've got the story all wrong: Prince wasn't allowed to use his stage name because it was copyrighted by the record he used to work for, so while that was going on he redid his stage name to be a goofy symbol that couldn't possibly fall under copyright protection. It was really quite brilliant.

But that being said, you guys really need to remember how the judicial system works before you get your undies in a twist. In this case, they have filed a complaint, at which point it will eventually, if it passes procedural hurdles, face the point where it is heard by a grand jury determining if the case is worthy of going to trial. It's only after the get through that and win the next phase of an actual trial that anything happens. But the point to recall, o ye of quick summary judgment, is that none of the things that actually matter, save one, have happened. And that one thing is the easiest thing to do: filing the complaint. Most likely, this complaint isn't even going to get through the procedural hurdles to the grand jury, and if by some miracle it gets that far, it will almost certainly be hounded out of court. So seriously guys, just relax a bit, take a deep breath, and remind yourself that the system doesn't differentiate between stupidity and brilliance at the entrance level, but it quite often screens them rather brilliantly beyond that. The system isn't broke, there is no need to launch the Bolshevik revolution over this level of stupidity. Really, sometimes there really is nothing to see here and you just need to move along.

Or, you know, the company was exactly correct when they pursued a trademark and the quoted poster has no understanding of intellectual property laws.

You think?

Might it even be possible that, contrary to the collective wisdom of NSG, that there is nothing ridiculous about color as a trademark? See, e.g., Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=514&page=159), 514 U.S. 159 (1995) (unanimous opinion holding that color alone can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark under U.S. law)

Perhaps, just perhaps, those opining otherwise don't know anything about trademark law?

Upon looking at the Compello logo (http://www.compello.nl/nieuws) and the Deutsche Telekom (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Bonn_DTAG2.jpg/800px-Bonn_DTAG2.jpg) logo it looks like DT's got a pretty strong case...they're nearly identical.

you can copyright a colour? cool, i goina copyright red and sue coca-cola!

I imagine Coke has copyrighted their signature red. I imagine Cadbury has copyrighted their signature purple also.

you can copyright a colour? cool, i goina copyright red and sue coca-cola!
this is just a little dumb in all reality, they did not create the colour, so what right do they have to copyright it!
:headbang:

Oh an random related comment but two stripe addais was slang for knock off gear when i was young (at least in Plymouth, England)

Um. Copyright law != trademark law. Trademarks, copyrights, and patents all differ. Each is a complex and independent system.

Here is some relevant background material:
U.S. Copyright Office Basics (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html)
USPTO Basic Facts About Trademarks (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trademark

Just another stupid lawsuit. Whats next, will apple farmers be suing apple for using their name? Or will someone sue the US for using Red white and blue? I swear, these lawsuits get stupider by the day.:rolleyes:

The music artist Prince copyrighted his name for quite awile, granted, the word "prince' was still allowed, but legally everyone had to refer to him as: "The artist formerly known as Prince" which is ridiculous, and when I was younger I always questioned what the deal was.

I understand in a vague sense where Deutsche Telekom is coming from... but it's still a ridiculous idea, it's not like the company is using the Magenta "T" or anything.

Actually that was because his (former) record company 'owned' his name...

Just another stupid lawsuit. Whats next, will apple farmers be suing apple for using their name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer

OK, there's just a ton of factually wrong information in here so let me try to correct some of it. First off, a "copyright" (and not a copywrite, a copywrite is something entirely different, you can remember it this way, a "copyright" is something that gives you the right to decide who gets to make copies) is something that protects a literary or artistic work. Not a name or slogan or symbol, but an artistic work.

A trademark on the other hand is a whole different animal. A trademark (which is what we're talking about here, not a copyright) is a thing that an entity uses to identify its brand product or service. They can protect these things so that someone who encounters that identifying thing will know what entity manufactured it or provides for that service.

For example, the Nike "swoosh". When you see it on a shoe you know that that shoe is a Nike brand shoe. Nike has a trademark on it. Another shoe company can't use that symbol on their shoes because of the possibility that a consumer will notice that symbol, or one very similar, and think it's Nike, and, if the shoe is of inferior quality, this harms Nike's reputation.

In that sense, anything that serves to identify a product to the consumer can be subject to a trademark. Let's take the "stupid" example of candybars and colors. If I make a candybar, and I wrap my candybars in a wrapper that is predominantly a very distinct shade of purple, and then sometime someone else comes along and sells their own candybars, wrapped in a similar shade of purple wrapper, there is a chance that someone could confuse the two products. Hence my getting a trademark on the use of that color on candybar wrappers is entirely legitimate. It is a color scheme I use to identify my product. That's basically the exact holding in the Qualitex case TCT cited above, which, if memory serves, had to do with a very distinct shade of green.

There is nothing wrong or illogical about a company securing a trademark on things that are used in identifying their products, even if that thing is a particular color scheme.

*snip*

To add to this, while it's true you can get a trademark for things like a certain colour you've used on a wrapper, or even the shape of a pill, this is not always so. Even if you DO manage to get such a trademark, it does not automatically mean that no one else can use that colour or that shape. Just because a certain candy bar uses bright shade of purple on the wrapper does not mean that a producer of luggage can not use that same shade. Only if the use of the colour causes confusion in the market will it be considered infringment.

Trademarks are there for consumer protection. They identify products, the maker of a product, and provide consumers with security in the sense of knowing, generally, the quality of the product associated with the trademark. These issues are always taken into account when looking at infringement. Certain things cannot be trademarked...your name for example...unless your name has become associated with a product, and the threshold for that is very high (McDonald's for example). Even still, if you named a car dealership 'McDonald's', it's unlikely in the extreme that any consumer would be confused and think that the restaurant chain had opened up car dealerships.

The trademarking of a colour is about the colour itself...it is about the product or service associated with that colour. If two companies, in the same market, with the same kinds of products are using the same colour to create product association in the minds of consumers, then you are going to have confusion in the marketplace, and trademark is going to be an issue. It's not that insane.

They are, indeed.:rolleyes:

Just another stupid lawsuit. Whats next, will apple farmers be suing apple for using their name? Or will someone sue the US for using Red white and blue? I swear, these lawsuits get stupider by the day.:rolleyes:

It's not the fault of the cases that you do not understand the issues at play. I don't understand structural engineering...so I certainly do not pretend to be qualified to declare certain kinds of structures 'stupid'.

Trademarks are there for consumer protection. They identify products, the maker of a product, and provide consumers with security in the sense of knowing, generally, the quality of the product associated with the trademark. These issues are always taken into account when looking at infringement. Certain things cannot be trademarked...your name for example...unless your name has become associated with a product, and the threshold for that is very high (McDonald's for example). Even still, if you named a car dealership 'McDonald's', it's unlikely in the extreme that any consumer would be confused and think that the restaurant chain had opened up car dealerships.

To add to the example of apples. Let's say my name is Bob Apple. And I like children (no not in that way), so I decide to create a place for children and create "Apple Carnival" and hang signs outside my Apple Carnival. The company that makes computers called Apple can't really do anything, because most sain people won't look at that sign and think Steve Jobs has gone into the carnival business. The apple computers brand is not associated with carnivals, so I'm totally free to name it "apple carnival" and not fear any non-trivial legal disputes from the Macintosh corporation (the big apple circus might have issues however).

But let's say I also like electronics, and I, Bob Apple, decide to create a computer store, where I sell computers of all make and model. And I name this store "Apple computers" and hang a sign outside the door. Now we have a problem. Because I've named my store "Apple computers" theres a fair chance of causing confusin in the market and have people think this store is not run by Bob Apple, but by Macintosh.

Keep in mind folks...trademarks are also a 'use it or lose it' sort of creature. Getting a trademark in a logo, a colour, or what have you, is a sort of reward for the amount of money and effort you've put into pushing that mark (and sometimes, we're talking millions upon millions of dollars in this mark-mad world). But it doesn't exist in perpetuity. If you stop using that trademark, or let it fall into disuse, at one point, someone else can come along and challenge it, and even scoop it up. Companies spend a lot of time and effort into marketing their trademarks. Why should someone else be able to come along and piggyback off that effort by taking that mark, and using it to attract a consumer base that they would not have otherwise had? Conversely, if your trademark no longer creates a linkeage in the mind of the consumer, why should you be able to hang onto it in perpetuity? The laws attempt to strike a balance, and generally do a good job of it.

Gee, have a bitch next time Neo Art, chill man no need to go on a rant because some body misspelt a word and got confused with copyright and trademark. There are more constructive ways to tell him rather than putting him down


Anyway I don't think companies should be allowed to copyright colours or other general things.

Ugh, and then, despite Art's 'bitch', you go and fuck up the terms again.

I'd call that pure stubborness on your part, to be extremely generous.

Ugh, and then, despite Art's 'bitch', you go and fuck up the terms again.

I'd call that pure stubborness on your part, to be extremely generous.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed it. I figured any further effort on my part would be wasted.

At least he spelled it right...

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed it. I figured any further effort on my part would be wasted.

At least he spelled it right...Says the person who missed my Apple comparison :mad:

Keep in mind folks...trademarks are also a 'use it or lose it' sort of creature. Getting a trademark in a logo, a colour, or what have you, is a sort of reward for the amount of money and effort you've put into pushing that mark (and sometimes, we're talking millions upon millions of dollars in this mark-mad world). But it doesn't exist in perpetuity. If you stop using that trademark, or let it fall into disuse, at one point, someone else can come along and challenge it, and even scoop it up. Companies spend a lot of time and effort into marketing their trademarks. Why should someone else be able to come along and piggyback off that effort by taking that mark, and using it to attract a consumer base that they would not have otherwise had? Conversely, if your trademark no longer creates a linkeage in the mind of the consumer, why should you be able to hang onto it in perpetuity? The laws attempt to strike a balance, and generally do a good job of it.


people would be amazed at how many names for "generic" products were once brand names...asprin (though I understand asprin still retains its trademark in canada...), trampoline, pantyhoes, nylon, popsicle, scotch tape, q-tip....kleenex came very close.

Says the person who missed my Apple comparison :mad:

I saw it. You'll note they lost.

I saw it. You'll note they lost.Which Apple are we talking about here =P
Note that Apple Corps won the Midi case.

people would be amazed at how many names for "generic" products were once brand names...asprin (though I understand asprin still retains its trademark in canada...), trampoline, pantyhoes, nylon, popsicle, scotch tape, q-tip....kleenex came very close.

Right, another way you can lose your trademark...once it enters the vernacular. Xerox is a great example...people starting calling all photocopying 'xeroxing', and though the company fought to keep their trademark, they just couldn't stop people from diluting the mark.

Which Apple are we talking about here =P
Note that Apple Corps won the Midi case.

right, it's confusing, the issues between Apple, Inc. and Apple Corp. are long and convoluted and involve a series of issues which are not easily distilled...

Right, another way you can lose your trademark...once it enters the vernacular. Xerox is a great example...people starting calling all photocopying 'xeroxing', and though the company fought to keep their trademark, they just couldn't stop people from diluting the mark.

I dunno about canada, but in the US xerox does still retain their trademark and they are very protective of it for that reason. There's actually been some litigation on the matter, and the general opinion is, even if a term becomes popularized, if you fight it, and it does so anyway, that's sufficient to show that you've attempted to retain interest in it.

I dunno about canada, but in the US xerox does still retain their trademark and they are very protective of it for that reason. There's actually been some litigation on the matter, and the general opinion is, even if a term becomes popularized, if you fight it, and it does so anyway, that's sufficient to show that you've attempted to retain interest in it."Photoshopping" is a pretty interesting example as well.

I dunno about canada, but in the US xerox does still retain their trademark and they are very protective of it for that reason. There's actually been some litigation on the matter, and the general opinion is, even if a term becomes popularized, if you fight it, and it does so anyway, that's sufficient to show that you've attempted to retain interest in it.
Ahhhhh, you are correct. Xerox nearly lost its trademark here, and did lose it in countries like Indian and Russia. It is still struggling to avoid genericization, but it still can lose it...Xerox's efforts need to be ongoing here to keep their trademark.

I CALL THE VOWELS!!

*runs to patent office*
C_n _ pl__s_ b_y _ v_w_l?

C_n _ pl__s_ b_y _ v_w_l?

LM**

Did they trademark a specific HCL or RGB formula for their color? Do both companies have similar logos or other potentially similar symbols? No pics at the link.

Portions of the human genome are held as copyrighted information by pharmeceutical companies. They claim rights to links of your DNA. This copyright/trademark issue has moved beyind the reasonable protection of inventors' rights to their inventions to the boundless extents of insanity. I'm a capitalist of the old school, where intellectual and physical property are to be respected. I vehemently disagree with the monopolistic fascism of many large corporations. Colors and genes don't belong to anyone.

people would be amazed at how many names for "generic" products were once brand names...asprin (though I understand asprin still retains its trademark in canada...), trampoline, pantyhoes, nylon, popsicle, scotch tape, q-tip....kleenex came very close.

Pantyhoes? I guess this one just didn't get any customers, why would anyone buy a hooker in panties?

Did they trademark a specific HCL or RGB formula for their color? Do both companies have similar logos or other potentially similar symbols? No pics at the link.

Portions of the human genome are held as copyrighted information by pharmeceutical companies. They claim rights to links of your DNA. This copyright/trademark issue has moved beyind the reasonable protection of inventors' rights to their inventions to the boundless extents of insanity. I'm a capitalist of the old school, where intellectual and physical property are to be respected. I vehemently disagree with the monopolistic fascism of many large corporations. Colors and genes don't belong to anyone.

If you've gone through the expense to modify a gene, why shouldn't you hold the patent to it? (again, copyright is an entirely different issue) The Harvard Mouse case upheld the principle that higher lifeforms should not be the subject of patents, that patents could only be held on single cell organisms...but we've had a case in Canada dealing with a farmer in Saskatchewan who encouraged the growth of Monsanto engineered 'Round up Ready' wheat on his land. The Supreme Court of Canada in that case allowed the patenting of the wheat itself, saying that it was a collection of cells, all of which contained the patented modification.

It's a dangerous precedent I think, and yet, the case in many ways was influenced by the way that this particular farmer went out of his way to identify the seeds that had blown onto his land (spraying round up to see which plants survived), and planted those seeds (actively...the plants made up about 80% of his crop). He never used the round up, so he argued that the particular modification hadn't been of use to him....but that argument failed because much like a fire-extinguisher, the protection was there for him if he needed it. Not using it didn't lessen it's utility.

Should the farmer, doing what he did, have been able to profit from the blown seed? If he could do it, what would stop him from selling plants for seed to others? What protection would there be for the research costs incurred by Monsanto?

you can copyright a colour? cool, i goina copyright red and sue coca-cola!
this is just a little dumb in all reality, they did not create the colour, so what right do they have to copyright it!
:headbang:

Oh an random related comment but two stripe addais was slang for knock off gear when i was young (at least in Plymouth, England)

Red is copyrighted by the Post Office (UK)

Red is copyrighted by the Post Office (UK)

No, it isn't...
I suggest you do some research.

Red is copyrighted by the Post Office (UK)
*sigh*

Copyright: is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights.

Trademark: is a distinctive sign or indicator of some kind which is used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify uniquely the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.

Patent: is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention.

Please people, the terminology is NOT that difficult to understand.

If the Post Office in the UK has a trademark in the colour red, it would still not mean that you would be in any way, shape or form prevented from using the colour red UNLESS you opened up a mail service and purported to advertise your service using this colour.

No, it isn't...
I suggest you do some research.

Back of a PO letter stated it!

Back of a PO letter stated it!

What exactly does the letter say?

Edit: Ah. It says: "Royal Mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail), the Royal Mail Cruciform, the colour red and SmartStamp are all registered trademarks of Royal Mail Group plc.". The colour red is not trademarked. A specific colour of red associated with the Royal Mail is.

The Royal Mail Logo and The Colour Red *Copyright symbol* the Post office LTD.

The Royal Mail Logo and The Colour Red *Copyright symbol* the Post office LTD.
I think you confuse TM with the copyright symbol. One does not copyright a Logo, a colour, or the name of a business.

The Royal Mail Logo and The Colour Red *Copyright symbol* the Post office LTD.

*Trademarks DukeBuryShire*

*Trademarks DukesBuryShire*

Spelt like that I laugh at thou.

Spelt like that I laugh at thou.

I don't know why I always want to put the "s" in there :(

I don't know why I always want to put the "s" in there :(

In where?

In where?

between Duke & bury

I don't know why I always want to put the "s" in there :(

Me too, because I want it to be HIS BuryShire!

Me too, because I want it to be HIS BuryShire!

That's probably it for me as well...

It comes from the old name of "Duke of Bury's Shires".

Note: That explanation came after the name! :D

OK, there's just a ton of factually wrong information in here ...

To add to this, ...

It's not the fault of the cases ...

To add to the example of apples. ...

Keep in mind folks...

Ugh...

At least he spelled it right...

people would be amazed at how many names for "generic" products were once brand names...

I saw it...

Right, another way you can lose your trademark...

right, it's confusing, ...

I dunno about canada, ...

Ahhhhh, you are correct...

If you've gone through the expense ...

*sigh*...


Get a room, you two... Nothing ruins an thread that depends on inaccuracy to be enjoyable more than a couple of lawyers reciting first year law lessons.

Get a room, you two... Nothing ruins an thread that depends on inaccuracy to be enjoyable more than a couple of lawyers reciting first year law lessons.

Intellectual Property is an upper year course here :P

And you love it. But I agree to the room.

Ugh, and then, despite Art's 'bitch', you go and fuck up the terms again.

I'd call that pure stubborness on your part, to be extremely generous.

It has nothing to do with being stubborn and I resent that accusation.

I the rush of typing plus it was late at night (about 12:30am) I got confused not with the meaning of the words but as the two words were at the front of my mind I inadvertently typed in the wrong word without thinking about it. I did mean to type in trademark.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed it. I figured any further effort on my part would be wasted.

At least he spelled it right...

Please refer to my post with Neesika's post quoted. And if you had pointed it out to me I would have changed it, and unlike previous posts where I may not have changed it because that is opinion, rather than fact in this case, I would not have pursued it and kept calling it copyright, and changed it to trademark.

I am sorry if you felt it would be a waste of time to reply to my post because I made a mistake but I assure you it would not have been as I would have realised that I had typed the wrong word as I said not of confusing as to what they mean but a typed word without checking what word i had typed. The rest of my post still stands though.

I am not that arrogant nor so far up myself that everything I say I believe is true and that no amount of fact will change my mind.

Also remember that I posted before your detailed posts on trademark law.

C_n _ pl__s_ b_y _ v_w_l?

$500...each

Intellectual Property is an upper year course here :P

And you love it. But I agree to the room.

Upper year, lower year, it's still too much like watching lawyer sex.

If I had ever watched lawyer sex, I mean...

That didn't turn out too well, did it?

Fine, as long as #000000 is mine... all mine!! :D :D :D

Fine. I call #000000000001 in 48-bit RGB : )

Copyright: is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights.

I dislike how long current copyrights last, author's life plus 70 years in the US. It seems far in excess of the incentive rationale IP is generally justified by. Who plans that far after their death? I think 20-40 years would be incentive enough. Its also crappy that whenever a lot of material is about to enter the public domain copright is extended. Also, I can see why software is copyrighted but one would think that it should last about the same time as a patent, if not less given the innovativeness of the software industry.

Also, I can see why software is copyrighted but one would think that it should last about the same time as a patent, if not less given the innovativeness of the software industry.
Copywriting an algorithm makes as little sense as claiming ownership of the moon, or the known universe, or the concept of farming. An algorithm is a mathematical truth (whether or not an error term exists) and belongs to nobody. It's about as sensible as a teenager complaining a friend wore the same store-bought jacket to a party. If the concept of farming had been "patented" in the Mesolithic Age or whatever, and the offender hadn't been ignored or ultraviolenced, human society would look very different now.

Obviously art is different as it's arguably unique in a large set of possibilities with equal worth. I guess this should be a factor in software - if a solution is demonstrably the most efficient it should be utilisable by everyone if they can reach it independently but if it's one of a number of equal methods it's art, although baring games and the like the only reason to patent something like this is to transparently monopolise by forcing a market to adopt a proprietary format with no benefit over another. Ridiculous.

Trademarks should be allowed minimal complexity based on some form of Huffman logic using a measurement of the company's "worth." I've absolutely no idea how either of these things could be quantified, and clearly this would never happen anyways since it would kill the marketing industry...

</craptalk>