Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fur con"
From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
GreenReaper (Talk | contribs) (You can't extend trademarks like that. If the trademark is FURCON, then that is the mark, not a version with a space in it.) |
(I'll be the first to admit my trademark interpretation may not be up to snuff :-)) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:You can't extend trademarks like that. If the [http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78318515 trademark is FURCON], then that is the mark, not a version with a space in it. As noted above, ''fur con'' is a generic phrase, and even if it wasn't it would have been [http://www.registeringatrademark.com/protectable-marketable-trademark.shtml descriptive]. This is probably one reason why AAE doesn't try to enforce it in that manner - the trademark was applied for in 2003, and I think it's safe to say "fur con" was a generic term before then. Trademarking "fur con" would be like trademarking "frosted mini wheats" - you can only do it if you already own the concept almost entirely and can demonstrate others would assume a similar product using that name was your product. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | :You can't extend trademarks like that. If the [http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78318515 trademark is FURCON], then that is the mark, not a version with a space in it. As noted above, ''fur con'' is a generic phrase, and even if it wasn't it would have been [http://www.registeringatrademark.com/protectable-marketable-trademark.shtml descriptive]. This is probably one reason why AAE doesn't try to enforce it in that manner - the trademark was applied for in 2003, and I think it's safe to say "fur con" was a generic term before then. Trademarking "fur con" would be like trademarking "frosted mini wheats" - you can only do it if you already own the concept almost entirely and can demonstrate others would assume a similar product using that name was your product. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I will admit that the extension of "furcon" to "fur con" was my own interpretation (lest anyone think ill of AAE or anyone else). If that is incorrect, then...well, I'm not surprised. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer :-) I'm not sure I agree 100% on the generic-ness of the term, but that's neither here nor there given the question of extension of the trademark.----[[User:DuncanDaHusky|DuncanDaHusky]]<sup>([[User talk:DuncanDaHusky|talk]])</sup> 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:04, 24 June 2007
I changed the redirect from Furry convention (which was a double redirect anyway) to Further Confusion because Furcon (and by extension Fur Con) is a registered trademark of Anthropomorphic Arts and Education, Inc., the parent nonprofit corporation of Further Confusion.----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why couldn't this just be a disambig page, instead of a redirect? --IanKeith 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't heard or read "fur con" used that often myself, but others may have had difference experiences. IMHO, usage trumps trademark; if "fur con" is sometimes used by people to mean "furry convention" then it should have a disambig page rather than a redirect to the trademarked usage. --mwalimu 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen the term used a number of times in which is was NOT referring to Further Confusion: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
- So yeah... I'd say the term has fallen into the pubic domain by now... --Douglas Muth 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can't extend trademarks like that. If the trademark is FURCON, then that is the mark, not a version with a space in it. As noted above, fur con is a generic phrase, and even if it wasn't it would have been descriptive. This is probably one reason why AAE doesn't try to enforce it in that manner - the trademark was applied for in 2003, and I think it's safe to say "fur con" was a generic term before then. Trademarking "fur con" would be like trademarking "frosted mini wheats" - you can only do it if you already own the concept almost entirely and can demonstrate others would assume a similar product using that name was your product. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will admit that the extension of "furcon" to "fur con" was my own interpretation (lest anyone think ill of AAE or anyone else). If that is incorrect, then...well, I'm not surprised. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer :-) I'm not sure I agree 100% on the generic-ness of the term, but that's neither here nor there given the question of extension of the trademark.----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)