[WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia

[Alex R.]

This discussion should probably be taken over
to the new legal discussion list wikilegal-l at wikipedia.org
so I am cross posting my response there.

It is generally true that words are not protected under
trade mark law, but fanciful concatenation of words parts
are "pedia" is not a word, and some might say that neither
is "wiki" (though it probably has an emerging meaning when
combined with software as in wiki software).

Use of generic words in a TM is also allowable, thus
Midas Muffler is a trademark because combined together
Midas (name of a god) and Muffler have a fanciful meaning
that identifies a company, product, good or service.
There are many examples of TMs being created by
combination of words.

It is true that a word can become so associated with a particular
thing that its use may become generic, this happened with
xerox when the term xerox entered the language to mean
a copy. It was also once true for Singer which had meant
"sewing machine" at one time (no longer true) as in "I am
going to fix your torn skirt on my singer."

This can only happen with widespread usage of the term
 that becomes uncontrollably commonplace. This is not
happening for Wikipedia. The Russian folks stopped using
the English Wikipedia name (now they have their own Russian
name that sort of has a similar meaning, and that may
also be protected by the Wikipedia TM).

The only other use has been the term as discovered by LittleDan,
that is currently under discussion, i.e. AstroWikipedia. Hopefully
we can convince the people who are using Wikipedia that they desist
using the name and adopt a different name or become formally
associated with Wikipedia. (after we learn what their claim to
the name might be).

Alex756

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nikola Smolenski" <smolensk at eunet.yu>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia


On Wednesday 15 October 2003 21:47, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> >NAI ;) But, could WIkipedia be trademark at all as it is generic term?
> > Noone can trademark "Cherry Jam" as a name for cherry jam, could anyone
> > trademark "Wikipedia" as a name for a Wiki encyclopedia?
>
> The claim that "Wikipedia" is a generic term presupposes that others
> have used it before. Please name some.

It doesn't, it only presupposes that it is obvious term for a certain kind
of
product. Probably noone used the term "cucumber jam" for a jam made of
cucumbers, because such a jam does not exist, but if it would be made it
could not be sold under name "Cucumber Jam" or "Cucumberjam" or "Jam of
Cucumbers" etc.

I, of course, agree with Jimbo that if coca-cola is not generic, so isn't
Wikipedia...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l