- Posts
- 29,679
- Likes
- 76,840
Interesting trademark case...
- Posts
- 247
- Likes
- 232
sgrenald
·The comments by the author at the end of the article (in the comments section, I mean) indicate that Rolex wants the TM for themselves. Which makes sense. If it became a generic term, they wouldn't be able to use it.
I'm not an IP expert, but my guess is that the "milsub" nickname isn't widespread enough for the USPTO to declare it un-trademark-able or whatever. It probably has to be common enough that if you asked a 6-month veteran salesperson at Kay Jewelers they could say they've heard of it.
I've heard some amusing/crazy TM stories over the years, but the ABSOLUTE BEST has to be from about 40 years ago when chip manufacturer Zilog tried to trademark the letter "Z." All of their chips started with the letter (the Z80 chip was the CPU for the original TRS-80 among other PCs)
I'm not an IP expert, but my guess is that the "milsub" nickname isn't widespread enough for the USPTO to declare it un-trademark-able or whatever. It probably has to be common enough that if you asked a 6-month veteran salesperson at Kay Jewelers they could say they've heard of it.
I've heard some amusing/crazy TM stories over the years, but the ABSOLUTE BEST has to be from about 40 years ago when chip manufacturer Zilog tried to trademark the letter "Z." All of their chips started with the letter (the Z80 chip was the CPU for the original TRS-80 among other PCs)
- Posts
- 4,340
- Likes
- 10,291
redpcar
·Tandy Radio Shack in their infinite wisdom thought that TRS would roll off the tongues. As a young user, we called them Trash 80s which was more fitting 😉
- Posts
- 6,650
- Likes
- 52,298
noelekal
··Home For Wayward WatchesThat Trash 80 was my introduction to computers. I've been warped ever since.
- Posts
- 2,579
- Likes
- 7,133
- Posts
- 247
- Likes
- 232
sgrenald
·Tandy Radio Shack in their infinite wisdom thought that TRS would roll off the tongues. As a young user, we called them Trash 80s which was more fitting 😉
It was the 70s. Also it was Radio Shack. All of their parts had names like the that TRS stood for (Tandy Radio Shack) obviously, and the 80 stood for the Z80 CPU. The tape recorder I used with mine was called the CTR-80. I think the monitor had a similar code name. But back then, there were a LOT of computers that had goofy names.
That Trash 80 was my introduction to computers. I've been warped ever since.
Me too! I had a Model I Level II 16k.
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 8,952
blufinz52
··Hears dead people, not watch rotors.
- Posts
- 8,742
- Likes
- 69,448
Darlinboy
·Tandy Radio Shack in their infinite wisdom thought that TRS would roll off the tongues. As a young user, we called them Trash 80s which was more fitting 😉
That Trash 80 was my introduction to computers. I've been warped ever since.
A "Trash 80" was my first on the job computer, and the first on which I wrote a program - in Basic. I was awful at coding.
Sorry it warped you. 🙁
- Posts
- 6,650
- Likes
- 52,298
noelekal
··Home For Wayward WatchesI wrote a program on delinquent note collection records and a monthly repossessions and foreclosures report on the Trash 80 assigned to me.
I appreciate what computers can do for me, but am no fan of the "inwardness" of the things.
I appreciate what computers can do for me, but am no fan of the "inwardness" of the things.
- Posts
- 247
- Likes
- 232
sgrenald
·A few more computer TM stories. When Apple Computer was starting up, they had to do a licensing deal with the Beatles' Apple Records. As part of the arrangement, it was agreed that Jobs & Woz would never start a band and that the Beatles would never try to build a computer. Years later, Apple put MIDI (music interface) tech into a Macintosh, and that opened up another can of worms with the Beatles. I think at that point they signed some sort of FINAL deal to get past this ridiculousness. So there was no issue when Apple created iTunes, the iTunes store, Garage Band, etc.
Apple ALSO had to sign some sort of TM deal with high-end speaker manufacturer McIntosh, which initially denied the license.
Apple ALSO had to sign some sort of TM deal with high-end speaker manufacturer McIntosh, which initially denied the license.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·The comments by the author at the end of the article (in the comments section, I mean) indicate that Rolex wants the TM for themselves.
I don’t have any reason to think the author is on the Rolex legal team, or doing more than recounting what Rolex’s pleadings say. And I guess I was trying to point out that what Rolex’s pleadings say aren’t necessarily (often?) related to the deeper strategy.
Case in point:
If it became a generic term, they wouldn't be able to use it.
I think you meant to say, if it became generic, anyone could use it, including Rolex.
And that is a big swing away from just one guy getting to use it.
- Posts
- 2,680
- Likes
- 9,844
CajunTiger
·@Tom Dick is famous
- Posts
- 6,832
- Likes
- 13,797
Nobel Prize
·We’ll see where it leads. In my experience it goes to what use of the term has taken place prior to or around the TM. The TM for “NATO straps” is being enforced. To me that is much more blatant use of a common term than milsub.
we’ll see
we’ll see
- Posts
- 6,832
- Likes
- 13,797
Nobel Prize
·I don’t have any reason to think the author is on the Rolex legal team, or doing more than recounting what Rolex’s pleadings say. And I guess I was trying to point out that what Rolex’s pleadings say aren’t necessarily (often?) related to the deeper strategy.
Case in point:
I think you meant to say, if it became generic, anyone could use it, including Rolex.
And that is a big swing away from just one guy getting to use it.
- Posts
- 16,863
- Likes
- 47,901
STANDY
··schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collectorWho’s starting the “Show your Omega Milsub” thread 😗
- Posts
- 247
- Likes
- 232
sgrenald
·I don’t have any reason to think the author is on the Rolex legal team, or doing more than recounting what Rolex’s pleadings say. And I guess I was trying to point out that what Rolex’s pleadings say aren’t necessarily (often?) related to the deeper strategy.
Case in point:
I think you meant to say, if it became generic, anyone could use it, including Rolex.
And that is a big swing away from just one guy getting to use it.
What I meant was that if Rolex couldn't trademark it, they wouldn't use it as a name for one of their watches. This was the comment that I was referencing (from Feb 19 @ 5pm): "Rolex is filing to cancel Kiger’s mark and register milsub as their own. They do not wish it to be a generic term."
Also, I believe the author is helping Kiger. I think I saw some comments to that on the Kiger FB page, so he's definitely not on Team Rolex.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·Not true. You can use it if it’s a generic term prior to trademarking. If it becomes generic after trademarking that’s just good marketing
Sorry, @Nobel Prize I don’t follow.
For the same reasons, forgive me if I’m talking past you.
Genericide can only occur post-TM, by definition.
And after genericide, the trademark has no legal protection and its proprietor has no legal claim on it any longer.
Genericide of the term “Milsub” would mean anyone, including Rolex, could use the term thereafter in connection with any product.
And I’d think that a term like ‘milsub’ is particularly susceptible to genericide precisely because it already was a somewhat generic term before someone happened to TM it. To protect that term from genericide would take diligent prosecution of any violations, which is a tall order for a mom-and-pop type operation.
It’s obviously possible Rolex wants to cancel and take over the TM as appears to be the assertion on the face of the proceedings. I just wonder if it’s not also less-obviously possible that Rolex is forcing Kiger to some hard choices about how to posture his defense. Rolex could show people using ‘milsub’ to describe their watches prior to the 2014 TM, and Kiger might have to choose to either prove it wasn’t only Rolex to whom that term applied before 2014 - and the better Kiger’s argument there, possibly the worse for his TM.
Again, of course I’m also not on the Rolex legal team (nor is my legal specialty IP), so this is just wild conjecture.
I only meant to point out that, having read the story OP cited, I was not left convinced - as was the cited author - that Rolex’s end game was to actually take over the TM. Seemed completely indeterminable to me, one way or the other.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·This was the comment that I was referencing (from Feb 19 @ 5pm): "Rolex is filing to cancel Kiger’s mark and register milsub as their own. They do not wish it to be a generic term."
I understand that is the author’s take; I’m just not convinced the author knows anything about what’s on Rolex’s mind.
Instead, it seems the author is only recounting what is in Rolex’s filings.
Confusing those two things (what’s in Rolex’s mind vs what’s in it’s filings) is like hearing a customer complain about price and assuming they’re talking about economic justice (as opposed to, say, having buyer’s remorse because they’ve realized their wife will see the credit card statement).
What I meant was that if Rolex couldn't trademark it, they wouldn't use it as a name for one of their watches.
That Rolex wants the TM in order to name a watch is another assumption the author makes - this time with even less support.
Rolex may instead think they have a very low chance of succeeding to take the TM (but great if they did! Bonus!), but a high chance of Kiger making a record that can undermine the TM altogether.
Why would Rolex be satisfied to only undermine the TM? I don’t know. But, I can think of a number of possibilities.
For one (bad?) example: Rolex may not want to name a watch ‘milsub,’ but they may want to launch a social media marketing campaign for ‘Milsub Monday’ - and to use the word ‘milsub’ in such a campaign would require only that the TM become unenforceable. On this view, Rolex might think Kiger is squatting on a perfectly generic term (so they’re doing the watch world a favor), and also that the generic term could be useful to them (convenient!) if made generic.
But now, with respect to Rolex’s plans, I’m engaging in the same sort of baseless fan-fiction the article’s author appears to be engaged in (except in my version of the story, Rolex might have thought about this more than a moment).
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
- Posts
- 70
- Likes
- 235
ClaudeR
·I find it odd that this Kiger guy gets qualified as the hero against the villain, he basically builds a submariner hommage watch (*cough “copy” *cough), invents the Tag Heuer logo to say Kiger, trademarks a rather commonly used term associated with well known watch names, and has some sort of journalist write a story about his fights...
Shady practice on all acounts really
Shady practice on all acounts really
Similar threads
- Posts
- 8
- Views
- 294
- Posts
- 7
- Views
- 256
- Posts
- 2
- Views
- 459
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 481
- Posts
- 3
- Views
- 279
