Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:19666 misc.legal:5911
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!super!udel!rochester!cornell!mailrus!utah-gr!utah-cs!hollaar
From: hollaar@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee Hollaar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is ARC a valid trademark?
Message-ID: <5749@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 27 Sep 88 13:55:42 GMT
References: <1682@qiclab.UUCP> <3190@ttidca.TTI.COM> <10117@eddie.MIT.EDU> <3212@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Sender: uucp@super.ORG
Reply-To: hollaar@cs.utah.edu.UUCP (Lee Hollaar)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 23

In article <3212@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes:
>Is it possible for two companies to hold trademarks on the same name if 
>the product is markedly different?

Yes.  A trademark identifies goods, and when you register it you must state
the goods that it is used to identify.  On a broad scope, you indicate one
or more categories, but your claim isn't on the whole universe of goods or
even all of a category, just on the particular types of goods that you have
already used with the trademark in interstate commerce.

So ARC being used as a trademark for a piece of hardware may not block using
ARC for a piece of software as long as people do not confuse them.  Same goes
for an aircraft radio company and a piece of software.

Now perhaps there is an argument that ARC has become a generic description of
a type of program, like many other former trademarks that aren't any more.
(According to an ad from Xerox (tm) called "Once a trademark, not always a
trademark": asprin, escalator, trampoline, raisin bran, dry ice, cube steak,
high octane, cornflakes, kerosene, nylon, yo yo, linoleum, shredded wheat, and
mimeograph.)

		Lee Hollaar
		University of Utah