🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
>I think the point is that AT&T itself is using, or acknowledging the
>use of, their TM as a generic noun, thereby (possibly) weakening their
>claims to the TM.

In the paragraph that was quoted, they first use it as an adjective, in the
phrase "BSD Unix Operating System".  Then in a parenthetical comment they
say, "BSD Unix is frequently called 'Berkeley Unix'".  I think you're
allowed to abbreviate in this manner after you've initially used the
trademark term in the official way.

One could also consider the parenthetical comment to be talking about the
terms, not the systems.  For instance, if I wrote "Fast is sometimes called
'speedy'", "fast" is still an adjective.  Actually, to be completely
proper, you'd probably have to quote "BSD Unix" and "Fast" in those cases,
but that's a level of detail that I doubt anyone would be held to.

>But K-C uses Kleenex to indicate their *brand*, and is undoubtedly
>careful about such things.  In this case AT&T/USL took some software
>which is officially called "BSD4.3" (right?) and is applying the term
>"Berkeley UNIX" to it.  K-C does not call other products "Scott
>Kleenex", "J+J Kleenex", etc.

To relate to my above comment about using it as an adjective first, and
then abbreviating, I think it's acceptable for a Kleenex commercial to say
something like: "I use Kleenex facial tissues because they're soft.
Kleenex: it's nice to your face."  Notice that in the second sentence, the
phrase "Kleenex facial tissues" has been abbreviated to "Kleenex", now that
the context has been established by the first sentence.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar