Octs in their heads

9 Replies to “Octs in their heads”

1. Don’t they have to “three-peat” before they can start trademarking this type of stuff?

2. You’re right, AJT! One of my favorite topics, actually.

3. I’m have a feeling the more appropriate phrase will be “Soxstober!”

4. …er, “Soxtober”

5. Thanks for the “sic”. I sure wish journalists (and others) would get it into their heads that “trademark” isn’t a verb, and that people don’t “apply for” or “ask for” trademark rights from the government.

6. You’re welcome, Bob. That’s been one of my “things” since I started the blog, but of course I can’t hold back the tide of legal illiteracy.

   It’s most galling when lawyers do it.

7. I must admit that I am on “the dark side” when it comes to using “trademark” as a verb.

   I see the wisdom of your position. If you use “trademark” as a verb, meaning “to register a trademark,” you fail to acknowledge that trademark rights grow from use, not registration. It ignores the fact that you have a trademark or you do not — registration doesn’t change that fact…

   Nevertheless, as “galling” (good word!) as it is, I find myself drawn to it. I actually like it.

   I guess it is like tequila shots or making my girlfriend dress up like a cheerleader for every Patriots game… I know that many look at me and say “that boy is just plain wrong, but it feels so right.

   If “party” can be a verb, so can “trademark.”

8. Marc, you’re just on the dark side period.

9. Pingback: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » Pure evil

Comments are closed.