Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:19437 misc.legal:5872
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!ukma!rutgers!gatech!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ooblick
From: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is ARC a valid trademark?
Message-ID: <10117@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: 22 Sep 88 12:38:10 GMT
References: <1682@qiclab.UUCP> <3190@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Reply-To: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18

In article <3190@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes:
>Being unfamiliar with the copyright/trademark issues, I don't know if this
>is useful, but DataPoint has a trademark (and has had it since the '70s)
>on the word ARC. As reprinted from a current Datapoint Manual

>	"Attached Resource Computer" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corporation.
>	Registered in the US patent and Trademark office.
>	"ARC" is a trademark of DATAPOINT Corp.

If DATAPOINT has indeed been using this as a trademark since the 70's,
I wonder why it hasn't bothered to register their trademark.  This leads
me to believe that there have been challenges to their exclusive use of the
letters, disallowing them to register it with the trademark office.

If ARC has been in common use, I find it hard to believe they can have
an exclusive right to use those letters in the same context.

Mikki Barry