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