Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:19331 misc.legal:5858
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!percival!qiclab!leonard
From: leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,misc.legal
Subject: Is ARC a valid trademark?
Message-ID: <1682@qiclab.UUCP>
Date: 19 Sep 88 04:51:58 GMT
Reply-To: leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Organization: Qic Laboratories, Portland, Oregon.
Lines: 20

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)

ARC is about as descriptive as you can get given the DOS restriction on
file extensions...

In any case, I *do* recall that letting your trademark be used as a generic
term can result in loss of trademark status. Xerox used to regularly bug
magazines about writers using Xerox this way ("Marge, xerox a few copies of
this..."). Since until this lawsuit, there is little evidence that SEA was
actively seeking to prevent this, they may be in for a *real* shock if they
run into someone with the bucks to fight this in court.


-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]		...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."