Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:19902 misc.legal:5951
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!noao!arizona!naucse!rwi
From: rwi@naucse.UUCP (Robert Wier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is ARC a valid trademark?
Summary: other ARC conflicts
Message-ID: <945@naucse.UUCP>
Date: 2 Oct 88 20:32:34 GMT
References: <1682@qiclab.UUCP> <3190@ttidca.TTI.COM> <10117@eddie.MIT.EDU> <627@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Lines: 23



 
 I posted this awhile ago, but never saw it turn up on the system.
 Must have gotten thrown out into the bit bucket.  My apologies
 if there are multiple copies floating around -- B.W.

> In article <1682@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>>I seem to vaguely recall hearing somethiing to the effect that you cannot
>>trademark a "descriptive" term. (forgive the vagueness as it has been a
>>*long* time since I saw this)
  There was an interesting major legal battle going on in the late
 70's when I was a grad student at Texas A & M, in College Station.
 There was a fairly large company there which delt with accounting
 and other paper-trail whatnot, and used computers extensively.
 Their name was "Agency Records Control", and there was a hot
 dispute with DataPoint in SanAntonio over who had rights to the
 ARC trademark.  This was being fought out in the Texas Secretary
 of State office since it involved a dispute on a corporate name.
 Unfortunately, I don't know how it came out.
 - Bob Wier in Flagstaff, Arizona
: