Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!mattd
From: mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple II Market Share
Message-ID: <39161@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 3 Mar 90 19:11:30 GMT
References: <20258.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 33

In article <20258.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes:
>
>Being used as a generic term does not make it one... As long as Xerox
>Corporation tries to teach that Xerox is NOT a generic term and legally
>enforces its trademark vigoriously, it will never =LEGALLY= be a generic
>term.. as Aspirin and Kleenex are... they -are- such because they did NOT
>adequately defend their trademark. Thank you in advance for your
>understanding.
>
>Steve
>
Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way.  Parker Brothers has always
vigorously protected their trademark on "Monopoly", but a few years ago the
Supreme Court refused to rule against the makers of "Anti-Monopoly", ruling
that the word "monopoly" is now standard terminology for a board game
involving real estate dealings.  Another court would not give Lucasfilm an
injunction to stop reporters from referring to SDI as "Star Wars".

The courts tend to rule that trademark protection ends when the word passes
into general usage.  This is probably why companies like Coca-Cola don't often
file actual lawsuits against people generically using their trademarks like
"Coke".

(If it helps, I say "copy" or "photocopy".  But the science is correctly
referred to as "Xerography".)


-- 
============================================================================
Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are
Developer Technical Support, Apple II |  not necessarily those of Apple
Group.  Personal mail only, please.   |  Computer, Inc.  Remember that."
============================================================================