Use LOL! In your posts, you could soon be breaching tradmark

lookylooky said:

Unbelievable! Can you imagine if they actually get this. I'd love to hear them explain why they feel they are entitled to it.

Click to expand...

It's a trademark, not a copyright. Trademark means "the name for your product". It doesn't need to be a newly invented word, as @Asif WILSON Khan already said, have you ever heard of Apple?

Apple is a trademark and also the name for the fruit. The fruit was named apple first, the company was named Apple later. Were you at any point in time outraged by it?

jazzc said:

It's a trademark, not a copyright. Trademark means "the name for your product". It doesn't need to be a newly invented word, as @Asif WILSON Khan already said, have you ever heard of Apple?

Apple is a trademark and also the name for the fruit. The fruit was named apple first, the company was named Apple later. Were you at any point in time outraged by it?

Click to expand...

Fair enough point and I know the difference between trademark and copyright but I think the reason why the majority of people posting in this thread are annoyed is because it's just another big business move to control more and cause problems for others. At the end of the day I'd be very surprised if they are approved. There have been a ton of cases of big companies and even an NFL team being turned down for trademarks due to it being part of the Public Domain which this fits into perfectly. Public Domain means "The public owns these, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it".

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about how we feel about the situation and wait and see how it pans out.

lookylooky said:

There have been a ton of cases of big companies and even an NFL team being turned down for trademarks due to it being part of the Public Domain which this fits into perfectly.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about the Washington Redskins, the decision has nothing to do with public domain. Not aware of any other case with NFL team and I am curious about examples related to trademarks denied due to pd (which I find really weird), so please do share.

jazzc said:

If you're talking about the Washington Redskins, the decision has nothing to do with public domain. Not aware of any other case with NFL team and I am curious about examples related to trademarks denied due to pd (which I find really weird), so please do share.

Click to expand...

I'm too busy to go find the specific links but from memory companies/people trademarking stuff is a mixed bag.
The NFL team was the New England Patriots who tried to trademark "19-0" if I remember correctly. Disney tried with "Día de los Muertos" but think withdrew it due to a massive petition. Walmart tried to trademark the yellow smiley face and lost with the court ruling it was Public Domain.
On the flip side and the general reason I don't approve of this P&G trademark nonsense is that Paris Hilton owns "that's hot" and I believed successfully sued Hallmark for using it.
You mentioned Apple, who also trademarked the term "app store" but had it removed a year or two after getting it.

If you google them I'm sure you'll find the references and I'm also sure the list goes on and on.

Then there is the whole other can of worms with "Genericide" and trademarks that were removed because of it. I believe Asprin, Elevator, Thermos and a number of others had them removed because they became so commonly used to describe something that they became Public Domain. Xerox almost ran into what would have been game over for themselves due to everyone saying go Xerox that or the page was Xeroxed.

As a whole it's a very interesting rabbit hole that could likely takeover your whole weekend....LOL.

Have a great weekend jazzc.