Bake off?? thats such a common term?? what has this poor world come to.....
What a load of BS, these tademarked suits are all nonsense, I'm going to trademark my name tomorrow and anyone with the same name better find a new one or the lawsuits are coming!!! (or you can pay me royalties)..
So are the words apple, shell and tide. They're common words also, but they're.
Also used as trademarks for computers, oil products, and a detergent.
If you want something longer, how about head and shoulders? It's common for.
Someone whose head is above the rest, but is it generic for shampoo?.
That article indicates the co-op used common words that just happen to also.
Be registered as a trademark for practically the same use as the mark holder..
Every mark holder has the (unenviable?) responsibility to protect and enforce.
Their trademark rights being potentially infringed for their specific use/s. (hint).
Ban these fu*king conglomerates.
If there's one thing that could bring humanity down, it's not terrorism, it's these assh*le conglomerates thinking that they can define and run everything...
You shouldn't be able to TM these kind of things..
This is just stupid if I were them I would just use it regardless, and tell em to go **** themselves...
That's totally ridiculous, they should ban all their products from the BAKE OFF. If it was an intended usage of the name I might say it's justified. I think Bill Oreilly should discuss this on the Factor...
Even worse, the organization using it was non-profit, holding just a charity event...
Speaking of a bake-off, my apple pie website has a great "apple crunch pie" recipe.
Now, back to business.....
You can't establish a trademark for generic words for their generic meanings..
But one can still do so if used distinctively rather than descriptively. (another.
If you wish for some law to ban being able to trademark generic words, you're.
Going to have issues with those using such for years that contributed to their.
Commercial success. Not to mention your options for what words to use for a.
Business (or even a trademark) might be severely limited, which I'll bet some.
Will also have a problem with.
The reality is there are certain laws governing trademarks and their usage. It.
Does place a "burden" on trying to check for such first, but at least it might.
Save one unwanted headaches down the road...
What's being overlooked in the article, besides the role of selective enforcement against infringement (how many "bake offs" do you think occur during a year, and how many get targeted for infringement?) and some common sense when it comes to use and/or intent...is the disrespect to a culture and the TM laws that allow it.
Bake-offs were public domain and public use for a long time before Pilsbury/General Mills decided to take the term for it's own, and thus, in a sense reverse hijacking a culture of a commonly employed term for a commonly occuring social occasion. The problem here is that companies, people, governments or whatever sometimes take and brand what they shouldn't be able to. Bake offs have been part of American culture since the communities of a few hundred years ago. For Pilsbury to selfishly claim that cultural phrase for their own may be legal, at least for now, but it doesn't make it right.
Finally, and perhaps not that it matters, I can't recall ever seeing or hearing "bake off" being used by General Mills in a TradeMark context. If that's the case, I'm a firm believer in the use-it-or-lose-it philosophy...
While not necessarily authoritative, this appears to be the "general definition".
Of public domain at least in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain This is a trademark involved, not a copyright or some "creative work"...
I wasn't around back in the 40's, or previously, so I can't really say what terms were considered common language back then. I'm certain there were baking contests long before Pillsbury came along... However, were these referred to specifically as bake offs?.
Pillsbury seems to have been using this term for their annual baking contest since 1949... So was the term popular before then, or did it become popular due to the fact that Pillsbury was using it? They had quite a reach into the American home back then... You know, back when 95% of women were homemakers...
It does seem kind of ridiculous to go after a small charity event like this, but it won't kill them to use a different word. Sure beats having a pissed of Pillsbury Dough Boy crashing the event.....
Here in the Philippines there's an optical shop whose name is Optical Shop...
Sounds like a chronic case of TM worship.
In the definition posted, "especially" does not mean "limited to." It simply means "creative works" are part of the "body of knowledge and innovation" later described as "part of a common culture and intellectual heritage" (that are free to use by all).
"Copyright" is not mentioned in the definition posted. Is it your opinion that the definition of "public domain" can apply to copyrights but not to trademarks?.
Beyond the technical legalities of trademarks, my point (and my opinion) was that there are occasions when TMs are claimed, granted and enforced when they shouldn't be...mostly meaning a generic word or phrase consistently used by the public in the same manner the TM wants to acquire, use and protect (or hijack, depending on your perspective). To my mind, this is not in the best interest of anyone. I could easily see (and have no problem with) a TM of "Pillsbury Bake Off." That would be specific enough to protect the company's annual bake off and their product name and still leave the generic term "bake off" in the public domain as it was and should be.
With no research behind this, it seems many current generic TMs like "Chocolate" and "Apple" are commonly used nouns that are TM'd and applied to a product in a manner not remotely connected to common public usage. This wouldn't appear to be an infringement of public domain because the TMs aren't used in the same manner being used in the public sector...there was no public usage history of calling computers Apples or phones Chocolate. (Of course, there may be a problem as soon as a chocolate bar becomes a disposable phone that you can eat after using...then new laws will come into the mix.) But for now, would a TM of "ice cream" be allowed? Don't think so, but "Dreyer's Ice Cream" might. Yes to both: The term was used before then, and it probably became more popular after they began using and advertising it...
I actually posted that because I happened to be using wikipedia that time. In.
My spare time just now, I eventually found this: http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/patentFARQ.html So it seems trademarks can also be part of public domain. But it appears that.
Pillsbury hasn't lost their trademark for the term, and you can bet they're not.
Interested in seeing that happen anytime soon.
You actually pointed out a way how generic words can be used as trademarks.
For their specific uses. Search for "arbitrary", "suggestive", and "descriptive" if.
You haven't heard of those yet.
Anyway, the fact is Pillsbury has a trademark for the term for it's use, and the.
Co-op has been told what can happen if they insist on using the words that's.
Potentially infringing it. Anyone can try to dispute Pillsbury's trademark...if up.
That article is from my hometown...what a small damn world! And I think it's pretty bogus that they can't use a 'term' to raise money for charity...