Trademark Labeling on Products

[metrologist]

Why do I not see trademarks on many products in the technical fields, such as on Keysight Infiniium o-scopes, but I do see them on things like a box of Kellogg's cereal?

Are there norms for such things or just up to whims?

[ebastler]

https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/marking-requirements-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/

One of the caveats here: The ^(R) superscript is the "stronger" trademark designation; it indicates that your trademark is registered (with the relevant trademark office in the region you are selling to). In many jurisdictions it is an offence to use the ^(R) symbol if your trademark is not registered locally.

So for products where the same configuration is sold more or less globally, manufacturers may not want to print the ^(R) on the product itself. Easier to manage for a packet of cereal, where various local or regional versions of the packaging are produced anyway.

I am not aware of any reason against using the ^TM symbol, which just claims rights in the trademark while it is not necessarily registered. But am also unclear about the benefits of attaching it to your product or company name; it seems pretty non-binding either way.

[TimFox]

A tricky bit is when a trademark becomes too popular in everyday language and loses legal protection.
I'm not sure how many of these have lost protected status, despite the trademark owners' efforts:
Kleenex, nylon, mylar, band-aid, teflon, cellophane, xerox, fibreglas (thus spelled), aspirin, heroin, ...

[tom66]

There is no legal requirement to include TM or (R) marks in most jurisdictions.  However, including such marks can help you defend a lawsuit in the event of trademark misuse, because it gives you evidence that you advised third parties that these were trademarks.

I suspect Kelloggs are covering their ass; the reality is that if someone made a non-Keysight scope using Keysight trademarks,  Keysight would have no difficulty demonstrating these marks were commonly known to be theirs. Even if the product didn't feature trademark indicators directly on it, the user manual and/or websites almost certainly call them out.

This is also the reason you will see "Protected under US Patents <x/y/z>" printed in manuals and on products;  whilst there is no strict legal requirement to do so, American courts have held that if you can do so, you should do so, and it becomes easier to demonstrate another party was negligent in violating your patent.  I don't believe such a requirement exists in the EU or UK, so you won't normally see those patents indicated.

(This is not legal advice and is just my understanding of the law.  Contact a real lawyer if necessary.)

[Siwastaja]

^TM and mentions of patents also carry a "coolness" factor. Including them can be pure marketing.

[Ranayna]

A tricky bit is when a trademark becomes too popular in everyday language and loses legal protection.
I'm not sure how many of these have lost protected status, despite the trademark owners' efforts:
Kleenex, nylon, mylar, band-aid, teflon, cellophane, xerox, fibreglas (thus spelled), aspirin, heroin, ...

This is why Lego is very litigious. Their patents expired, but of course their trademark did not.
And to keep it like that, they sue almost everyone with at least some reach that uses the word Lego to refer to bricks not made by them.

[Siwastaja]

This is why Lego is very litigious. Their patents expired, but of course their trademark did not.
And to keep it like that, they sue almost everyone with at least some reach that uses the word Lego to refer to bricks not made by them.

Yeah, and to be fair, that mostly serves the benefit of the customer: calling something "Lego" which is not would be also fraudulent.

Now it is more interesting how manufacturers can legally claim compatibility with trademarked systems; in ideal world they should be able to mention names, but in reality that is dangerous so instead they claim compatibility with "popular building block system" or "popular 2.4GHz wireless system"

[tom66]

A tricky bit is when a trademark becomes too popular in everyday language and loses legal protection.
I'm not sure how many of these have lost protected status, despite the trademark owners' efforts:
Kleenex, nylon, mylar, band-aid, teflon, cellophane, xerox, fibreglas (thus spelled), aspirin, heroin, ...

This is why Lego is very litigious. Their patents expired, but of course their trademark did not.
And to keep it like that, they sue almost everyone with at least some reach that uses the word Lego to refer to bricks not made by them.

Apparently, Lego destroys the moulds they use to produce bricks to prevent them getting into competitor hands, and some are buried in the foundations of the factories and offices.

[Analog Kid]

The one trademark that I absolutely refuse to honor in any way is the goddamn stupid REALTOR®.

That's just fucking outrageous: it's like a company trademarking the ColorRed®.

Now, both of my dictionaries (one from the 1940s, the other from 1980) explain that the word "realtor" (capitalized in the more recent book) means a member of the Nat'l. Assoc. of Real Estate Boards (I'm assuming in the US; not sure about Canada). OK, fine, you have to be a member of that organization to call yourself a realtor.

But I cannot see for the life of me how that gives them the right to copyright the word "realtor", which has been in English language dictionaries since forever. I mean, it would be like the AMA coming up with "DOCTOR®".

This just seems so wrong. Fuck that shit.

[TimFox]

"Realtor" is a name coined by the National Association of Realtors in 1916, who trademarked it.
In which older dictionary ("since forever") does it appear as a common noun?
In my dictionaries, it appears as a trademark.
Legally, in the USA, the name is reserved for members of the Association.
Common nouns include "real estate agent", "real estate broker".
Details:
https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/history

A similar organization has a trademark "Realtist".
The NAREB was founded in 1947 due to discrimination against Black real-estate agents.
https://www.nareb.com/our-history/

[Analog Kid]

In which old dictionary ("since forever") does it appear as a common noun?

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, published 1939.

re'al-tor (IPA pronunciation), n. [See 2d REALTY.]
A real-estate broker who is an active member of a local board having membership in the National Association of Real Estate Boards, an organization, incorporated in 1908, for the advancement of the interests of real-estate brokers and the protection of the public from unprincipled agents or brokers.

That's it; no capitalization, no ® symbol.

In my dictionaries, it appears as a trademark.

Not in this one. In my newer one (1980) it's capitalized, but still no ®.

[TimFox]

In which old dictionary ("since forever") does it appear as a common noun?

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, published 1939.

re'al-tor (IPA pronunciation), n. [See 2d REALTY.]
A real-estate broker who is an active member of a local board having membership in the National Association of Real Estate Boards, an organization, incorporated in 1908, for the advancement of the interests of real-estate brokers and the protection of the public from unprincipled agents or brokers.

That's it; no capitalization, no ® symbol.

In my dictionaries, it appears as a trademark.

Not in this one. In my newer one (1980) it's capitalized, but still no ®.

"The collective marks REALTORS® and REALTOR® were registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Sept. 13, 1949, and Jan. 10, 1950, respectively, under Registration Numbers 515,200 and 519,789."
(from the site I cited).
"Coca" is a common noun.  "Coca-Cola" is a trademark.
Many dictionaries are sloppy about R and TM, but the organization coined the word in 1916 and registered the trademark later:  it's not a native English word.

[Analog Kid]

So are you actually defending their legal use of this word as a trademark?
A lot of folks--including a lot of realtors--think that that is bullshit.
Or are you just taking the opportunity to parade your pedantry here?

[metrologist]

The Ohio State University (OSU) trademarked the word "the" for use on branded products.

Many other simple words are trademarked, such as Carbon and other elements.

Just Do It...

[Analog Kid]

Many other simple words are trademarked, such as Carbon and other elements.

What? Are you sure? I never heard of that.

Oh, I see; it's the trademark for a type of pencil. And it's been cancelled.

So the word "carbon" isn't trademarked, just that one product name.

[EPAIII]

I always thought "Scotch Tape" was the poster child for that. Notice that I said "Scotch Tape" and not just "Scotch" which may not have achieved that status. 3M seems to avoid putting "Scotch Tape" on their product, but the word "Scotch" is prominently displayed and always with the (R).

I wonder if Europeans and others around the world use "Scotch Tape" when they mean transparent, (previously) cellophane tape. Each in their own language, of course. And I would think that the laws of each country would rule over just what protection such names would have.

A tricky bit is when a trademark becomes too popular in everyday language and loses legal protection.
I'm not sure how many of these have lost protected status, despite the trademark owners' efforts:
Kleenex, nylon, mylar, band-aid, teflon, cellophane, xerox, fibreglas (thus spelled), aspirin, heroin, ...

[TimFox]

So are you actually defending their legal use of this word as a trademark?
A lot of folks--including a lot of realtors--think that that is bullshit.
Or are you just taking the opportunity to parade your pedantry here?

Yes, it is a word coined by the organization that trademarked it, and the courts have upheld it.
Which Realtor thinks it is bullshit?

[Analog Kid]

Well, I couldn't find the rant I found earlier by a realtor (so sue me!), but I did find this piece by an attorney who thinks it's high time to no longer pay fealty to the word but just to let it be used as an ordinary noun.

There's law, and then there's lawfare (of which we've seen a lot this year). This (the exalted status accorded Realtor(R)) is the latter.

[Ranayna]

[...]
I wonder if Europeans and others around the world use "Scotch Tape" when they mean transparent, (previously) cellophane tape. [...]

In Germany its "Tesafilm", or just "Tesa".
Of course the company makes way more than that, but for almost anyone, if you ask them for "Tesa", you will get a roll of "Scotch Tape"

[ebastler]

Well, I couldn't find the rant I found earlier by a realtor (so sue me!), but I did find this piece by an attorney who thinks it's high time to no longer pay fealty to the word but just to let it be used as an ordinary noun.

There's law, and then there's lawfare (of which we've seen a lot this year). This (the exalted status accorded Realtor(R)) is the latter.

Just write "realtor" or "Realtor" without the all-caps, and you'll be fine. It seems that the National Association of Realtors only tried to obtain a trademark as an afterthought (in 1949, after coining the term in 1916). By that time, presumably the word had already come into common usage, so all they could get protection for was the word mark "REALTOR" in all-caps.

Fine by me; who would want to apply that capitalization anyway in common use? It's not like they are higher beings who need to be worshipped...

[tom66]

Trademarks are usually registered in all caps.  Not sure for the reason but I'm sure it applies to any casing.  Usually courts will rule that similarly-printed or sounding names will be considered infringement.  So "Real-Tor" is likely to be a problem too if you are in real estate, but if you happen to sell genuine Tor exit nodes, you could have use of "Real-Tor" since there's no chance a customer of that business would confuse you with a real estate agent.

Colours have been trademarked in the past; that's where I think it gets ridiculous.  For some time the "Orange" telecommunications company had trademarked that very Pantone colour for telecomms.  I can understand the brand "Orange" in the distinctive square is trademarkable, but I cannot for the life of me see why the colour should be something that is trademarkable.

[ebastler]

Trademarks are usually registered in all caps.  Not sure for the reason but I'm sure it applies to any casing.

Hmm -- but then, why does the Realtors Association insist that everyone write their trademark in all-caps when using it?

[Ranayna]

[...]
Colours have been trademarked in the past; that's where I think it gets ridiculous.  For some time the "Orange" telecommunications company had trademarked that very Pantone colour for telecomms.  I can understand the brand "Orange" in the distinctive square is trademarkable, but I cannot for the life of me see why the colour should be something that is trademarkable.

German Telekom has a trademark on the color magenta. Not only as product name for some of their tarrifs, but also on the pantone color. So Orange is not unique in that regard.

[tom66]

[...]
Colours have been trademarked in the past; that's where I think it gets ridiculous.  For some time the "Orange" telecommunications company had trademarked that very Pantone colour for telecomms.  I can understand the brand "Orange" in the distinctive square is trademarkable, but I cannot for the life of me see why the colour should be something that is trademarkable.

German Telekom has a trademark on the color magenta. Not only as product name for some of their tarrifs, but also on the pantone color. So Orange is not unique in that regard.

At a certain point we have to blame courts and lawmakers for allowing such frivolity for existing.

See also, the 'easy' brand.  easyJet, easyHotel, easyCar and so on.  So I was glad to find out that they had lost out when trying to sue someone with 'easyfundraising' and 'easysearch' as their brand.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/easyjet-trademark-easyfundraising-court-easy-b2611043.html