Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Jun 2011 22:46 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 478507
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: This is a red herring
by MOS6510 on Sat 25th Jun 2011 06:11
in reply to "RE: This is a red herring"
RE[3]: This is a red herring
by Neolander on Sat 25th Jun 2011 06:43
in reply to "RE[2]: This is a red herring"
The question is interesting nonetheless.
Can a company legally use a trademark on a word or expression that has become the commonplace way of describing a concept ?
As an example, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that in the UK, people don't use "to vacuum clean" all so often. To describe the action of using a powerful electric pump to suck up everything in the floor of a room*, "to hoover" is preferred. Should the Hoover Company have the right to sue all illegal uses of the term ?
* And this reminds me of a webcomic gag about a "suck for a buck" sign and a messy room =_= I spend too much time on the internet.
Edited 2011-06-25 06:45 UTC





Member since:
2008-03-17
Go see the comments in the other article for other peoples opinions on that logical fallacy.
But to add my own... Why can't I trademark "Book Store" or any other similar term?