[Moderator's note: this thread has strayed from the topic of
 C++ standardization -- subject changed accordingly.
 I think that's probably enough on trademark law, at least
 unless someone can tie this back into the issue of choosing
 namespace names.  -fjh.]

In article <cpbj1.23682$08.5957675@newscene.newscene.com>,
alstevens@midifitz.com says...
> The following is drawn from my experience and is not a legal opinion.

likewise, of course.

> >You don't have to use the name for any specific purpose to trademark it.
>
> When I applied to register a product name trademark, I was required to show
> that a product was actually being marketed under that name.

I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to say that there are a lot of
different things you can use a trademark for -- the name of a company,
the name of a product, a line of products, a service, etc.  I don't
know the complete list by any means, but I know there are quite a few
different things.

> > However, you're not allowed to trademark things that are simply generic
> names for something, and/or are already in common usage.
>
> What about "Coke," "Delphi," "Tide," "Shell," "Whisk," and "Slice?" Those
> words all mean something else and are in common usage.

In most cases like this, the trademark is only on the version using
the specific capitalization -- as in "Shell" is trademarked, but
"shell" is not.  Despite this, if you tried to start a Gas-station
named "shell" you'd probably be held be infringing.

> As it was explained to me by a trademark/patent lawyer, you can trademark
> names like that as long as your trademark does not create confusion with
> another product of the same type, which is why Borland could use Delphi for
> a programming environment even though another company had a national online
> service with the same name.

Right -- there are also regional rules, so if I open a restaurant here
in Colorado Springs, and it's the same as the trademarked name of even
a very similar restaurant in, say, Portland Oregon, it's probably not
going to be considered an infringement.  If I were to expand that into
a chain of restaurants and tried to open one in or near Portland
Oregon, chances are I'd have to either come up with a new name, or buy
the name (or least rights to use it) from the other owner.

> So, presumably, you could call your accounting program McDonald's and be
> within the spirit and letter of the law, but you'd still probably have to do
> battle with an army of corporate lawyers over it. A local hotdog restaurant
> here is called "Dogs 'R' Us" with the R backwards. They got sued by Toys 'R'
> Us and prevailed.

In the end, anything that ends up on court is something of a coin-
toss.  Even when something is decided in court, it's not particularly
certain that it'll stand -- I was recently at an ALI-ABA seminar in
which a judge (Judge Ryder who sits on the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, IIRC) noted that roughly 40% of all lower court
decisions on intellectual property cases ended up being overturned, at
least in part.

While I'm fairly certain that utility patent cases are more difficult
than trademark, trade-dress and design patent cases, I'm also pretty
sure that ANY case involving IP is going to be quite difficult to deal
with, and is probably more likely to be overturned than most other
kinds of cases.

--
    Later,
    Jerry.

The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]