Dueling linguists

[Antariksh Bothale]

Check out Apple and Microsoft trying to tear each other apart on whether the term App Store can be granted a trademark.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3059

[Gaurav Lahoti]

Same thing happened with Amazon also when they opened their 'App store' selling Android based applications. Apple filed a lawsuit and said something like - "People associate 'app store' with only iPod/iPhone applications. They will get confused." :P

Gaurav Lahoti

On 30 March 2011 20:21, Antariksh Bothale <antariks...@gmail.com> wrote:

Check out Apple and Microsoft trying to tear each other apart on whether the term App Store can be granted a trademark.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3059

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IITB Language Enthusiasts Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to iitb-language-e...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to iitb-language-enthusi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/iitb-language-enthusiasts-group?hl=en.

[Antariksh Bothale]

This gunda-gardi with Linguistics at its base is fairly common -- Facebook, for example, tries to go medieval on any website that has a name of the form Xbook or FaceX -- they have practically tried to cordon off these two words of the English language to their backyard so that only they can play with them.

[Miheer Desai]

This not gunda-gardi.

It is merely the attempt of a company to protect its trademark. To prevent appropriation of the holder's brand (and all resources that went to create it) by other product/ service providers.

The contention is whether it qualifies as a trademark - and billions of dollars are at stake.

Assume Uncle Chips were still popular. Just visualize some random guy selling "Uncle Chips", giving the customers an impression that these are the authentic Uncle Chips, thus piggybacking on the brand they had built. When confronted he says, "Oh, my uncle makes these chips, and "Uncle Chips" is just a combination of two words - so I can use it".

Above is not meant in support of Apple/ Facebook, but the intention is to drive home the importance of trademark protection.

Miheer Desai

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Antariksh Bothale <antariks...@gmail.com> wrote:

This gunda-gardi with Linguistics at its base is fairly common -- Facebook, for example, tries to go medieval on any website that has a name of the form Xbook or FaceX -- they have practically tried to cordon off these two words of the English language to their backyard so that only they can play with them.

[Scrabbler]

That was Uncle Chipps. If they tried to sue someone using Chipps, I can see them havving a case. (If they tried to sue someone for Uncle....well, good luck to them)

But you have some really sad stories in this - there was the time McDonalds tried to sue a couple for having a store called Mac Nuggets or some such. In Scotland.

As for facebook claiming all *book and face*, all I can say is.... _facepalm_

regards
Jose

[Antariksh Bothale]

Miheer, I am not against trademark protection, but the cases of companies trying to, as I said, cordon off normal language are increasing.

Facebook has been filing trademarks on a variety of words from wall to poke to like and what not. Now, trademark law is complex, and I do not claim to know it or consider myself able to make individual judgments, but it's easy to see that lines are slowly being crossed in the name of trademarks. It's mostly corporate heavy-handedness.

Here is a nice article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/weekinreview/27zimmer.html?_r=2

[Aviral Bhatnagar]

Brilliant article