Joho the Blog
|
|
|
June 20, 2003
There Is No Cat is getting nasty mail from someone who claims to own the trademark on the phrase "Clue-by-four." Since the phrase is used in sentences like "He wouldn't understand the Internet if you hit him with a clue-by-four," There Is No Cat points out the irony of it all. You know what? So long as we're not trying to confuse your customers for our own commercial gain, we're going to use the words we want. Even though Silence Is Golden® I enjoyed GroovyMother's response to the same not-yet-a-lawyer letter from the owner of the trademark on Clue-by-Four. (Thanks to One Pot Meal for the link.) Posted
by D. Weinberger at June 20, 2003 09:29 AM
|
Comments
Other authors are also having McClung's clueless-by-four swung at them (via Boston Common).
How about a 'sphere wide challenge to use 'clue-by-four' as many times as possible today?
Posted by: steve | June 20, 2003 09:42 AM
I figured others must be getting the same nastygram I got, but I didn't see any of them when I searched on Google. Nice to see that others are taking the same approach I did (although I was more polite; I refrained from using the phrase "bite me", even though my first draft did include something similar....)
Posted by: ralph | June 20, 2003 09:50 AM
I didn't know you could trademark an expression in common use. This seems remarkably similar to the situation with software and business patents, where any competent practitioner finds the ideas obvious and likely has used of invented something similar at least twice.
The language of Trademark law relates to common usage in a similar way to patents and common use. Legally, the problem is that when the issuing bodies accept something, the burden of proof tends to shift to the rest of us, and it remains unresolved until an actual case is decided.
Ralph, I admire your restraint.
Posted by: Gerry | June 20, 2003 10:23 AM