Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5083456" data-attributes="member: 2732">You missed Army Maker.  In short, I'd agree with you if it would clearly make it hard to communicate what a product does, but army constructor doesn't feel like a neologism, it's definitely not what I would call and awkward euphemism.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.This, I believe, would not contribute to so-called generizide.  As long as Lone Wolf is educating people, even if you disagree with the fact that it's a trademark, by posting your opinion her in this forum you recognize it as a trademark.  The existence of this very thread means more people are becoming aware.  I may be wrong about this, but having "contempt" for a trademark is not the same as not recognizing a trademark.  I don't think a judge or jury would be sympathetic to someone actually trying to make a trademark generic.  (People should never assume these posts would ever be ignored by a lawsuit.  When I looked into the WoTC lawsuits, I noticed at least one defendant's post was used in the complaint on a message board.)Understood.  I'll gladly admit to being wrong about that.  It may not have legal value, but my own judgements come if a descriptive trademark is good or bad comes from how easilly you can use another term to describe something.  But then again, that's not a legal opinion.People need to know that serious Trademark violations like that do have severe consequences.  Passing off your goods as somebody else's is akin to Identity Theft.There was a family that owned a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise and had three restaurants in the surrounding towns around here.  At some point, there was some dispute between the family and KFC, and they lost the rights to KFC.  The family continued to operate as KFC for over a year.  Finally, US Marshalls had to come in and seize all the stuff that indicated the KFC trademark or franchise--signs, any products with the trademarked logos, etc.  Well, I believe in part Playboy wants to prevent their trademark from becoming a generic term for nude cheescake magazines or porn, which it was in danger of, at least back when there were fewer of those types of magazines.  So I can understand why they take those steps.</blockquote>

Verification