Not just theirs.
But they're not saying they have the right to the name as a name. They're saying they have the right to the name as a name of a fast food restaurant.
Jayne is a girl's name.
River ,'Trash'
All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American
Discussion of episodes currently airing in Un-American locations (anything that's aired in Australia is fair game), as well as anything else the Un-Americans feel like talking about or we feel like asking them. Please use the show discussion threads for any current-season discussion.
Add yourself to the Buffista map while you're here by updating your profile.
Hil R. - Feb 02, 2003 7:03:51 pm PST #1534 of 9843
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
P.M. Marc - Feb 02, 2003 7:04:33 pm PST #1535 of 9843
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
It doesn't mean his name isn't a good and noble one, just that someone had prior legal claim to it for purposes of business. That's all trademarks are--they serve to avoid fraud.
See: Jones, David. AKA David Bowie.
Zoe Finch - Feb 02, 2003 7:07:33 pm PST #1536 of 9843
Gradh tu fhein
The MacDonalds were and are into business too!
Heck! I want to crab a claymore stand up and yell FREEDOM, I gotta chill!
Anne W. - Feb 02, 2003 7:08:33 pm PST #1537 of 9843
The lost sheep grow teeth, forsake their lambs, and lie with the lions.
Hell The MacDonalds of Skye could have withheld rights 100s of years ago for the sake of pride if it had ever occurred to them to be so petty -and the MacDonalds of Skye were GOOD at petty if it had swords and hacking people to bits involved.
Yeppers! That's my stepfather's clan. He's awfully proud of his ancestry, but refuses to wear a kilt, which is probably a good thing from an aesthetic standpoint.
Speaking of McDonald/McDonalds, etc., he had absolutely no trouble calling his own business McDonald ________. Since it wasn't fast food and was in no danger of being mistaken as such, there wasn't even the whiff of a lawsuit.
Typo Boy - Feb 02, 2003 7:08:59 pm PST #1538 of 9843
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
And in fact the McDonald's issue brings up an interesting point, if not the one intended. I think what you are describing is actually wrong, but not for the reason given. I don't think it is that it is an old name.
Copyright and trademark have gone crazy. The original intent of copyright was to given innovators an incentive to work at it full time. The original intent of trademark was to prevent fraud - to prevent one business person from taking advantage of the reputation of another by pretending to be that person or part of that business. Both have been expanded into new property forms. It is a new taking for the commons where "The sheep devour the men". The Brits do this as much as the Americans. For example I once worked for Petrobras the Brazilian national oil company. It's trademark was a variation on the Brazilian flag. A British court held that invalid, because the colors were the same as BPS and since both were oil companies this could cause confusion. In short the national oil company of the Brazilian state was forbidden to use the Brazilian Flag! I would say that is worse than the the McDonalds thing. But really they are all part of the same thing - not American arrogance, but corporate power.
Zoe Finch - Feb 02, 2003 7:12:04 pm PST #1539 of 9843
Gradh tu fhein
but corporate power.
Gone mad!
bon bon - Feb 02, 2003 7:13:47 pm PST #1540 of 9843
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
In short the national oil company of the Brazilian state was forbidden to use the Brazilian Flag!
I don't know anything about British trademark law. But I see nothing wrong with the court refusing to protect a later user in favor of a prior one with a valid trademark. So what? They're forced to use something OTHER than the Brazilian flag to mark their product-- which just happens to be the same product as another's with a similar mark. This is a classic trademark law: preventing customer confusion.
Caroma - Feb 02, 2003 7:15:53 pm PST #1541 of 9843
Hello! I must be going.
Hey, I'm a McDonald! Well, 1/4 anyway. My grandma was Mary Donald Huey McDonald from Glencoe.
In Nova Scotia.
But she sounded pure Scottish.
Zoe Finch - Feb 02, 2003 7:16:38 pm PST #1542 of 9843
Gradh tu fhein
I don't know anything about British trademark law. But I see nothing wrong with the court refusing to protect a later user in favor of a prior one with a valid trademark. So what? They're forced to use something OTHER than the Brazilian flag to mark their product-- which just happens to be the same product as another's with a similar mark. This is a classic trademark law: preventing customer confusion.
What's wrong is the idea that the profit motive should override national identity. Especially when a) the national identity came first and b) the UK would go apeshit if anyone challenged their right to use the Union Jack for any purpose we wish.
§ ita § - Feb 02, 2003 7:18:44 pm PST #1543 of 9843
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
What's wrong is the idea that the profit motive should override national identity
I'm markedly sceptical of the idea that the Brazilian company had something other than profit in mind. Now, the idea that a Brazilian should have first dibs on national iconography to make money? Hell, I'm the girl still mad that Mazda uses capoeira music in their ads.
But so many people that aren't even slightly Jamaican make money off our icons that I have no fight.