Great Western Coffee Shop

Sideshoots - associated subjects => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: ellendune on August 13, 2011, 17:07:14



Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: ellendune on August 13, 2011, 17:07:14

Honeybourne was a hive of activity. Asphalt was being laid on the base of the footbridge ramp on the new platform, which was just waiting for its top surface and fencing. A team of masons was building the other ramp base alongside the station car park and a ballast train was waiting to be sent west. Tracklaying and ballasting on the new Long Marston branch connection is complete.


Since there apears to be a tradition of pedantry on this site, I would like to point out that dense bitumen macadam is normally used these days rather than the asphalt that used to be used on station platforms. 


Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: willc on August 13, 2011, 18:05:33
My key aim in writing asphalt was to avoid using a word beginning with 't' which is a registered trademark, as I'm sure Graham can do without getting a lawyer's warning letter on behalf of its owner...


Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: ellendune on August 13, 2011, 18:17:49
Dense Bitumen Macadam is commonly abbreviated to DBM or Bitmac.  Neither of these are trade names unlike the t word that was originally a shortened for of Tarmacadam. Tarmacadam was superseded when tar (derived mainly from coal) ceased to be used as a binder and was replaced by bitumen which is derived from oil. 


Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: grahame on August 13, 2011, 19:51:05
My key aim in writing asphalt was to avoid using a word beginning with 't' which is a registered trademark, as I'm sure Graham can do without getting a lawyer's warning letter on behalf of its owner...

I very much appreciate that thought, thank you  ;D  ;D


Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: ChrisB on August 14, 2011, 18:30:51
Why would they be interested in us? Usecof tarmac is in the English language and no court case would stand up. Similar to hoover.


Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: willc on August 14, 2011, 23:52:42
Just because something is in common use does not mean that a company won't defend its trademark. I can assure you the Tarmac company is still quite keen on protecting its rights, though perhaps without the sheer determination of the manufacturers of a certain type of whirlpool bath or of a well known kind of mobile building - both brands one might say are "in the English language". Both parties are very keen on dispatching lawyers' letters to all and sundry about infringements of their trademark rights, I have seen them at work a good few times. As for "no court case would stand up" - want to bet? That's why it's best to avoid the risk in the first place by using generic terminology, though perhaps not DBM or bitmac...

Anyway, returning to the point of this thread, all looking on target for a resumption of service at Moreton-in-Marsh tomorrow, with the new signal operational, along with the point rodding for the crossover, and lots of other new s&t kit plugged in around the station area.



Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: ChrisB on August 15, 2011, 08:28:54
Sorry, don't agree... Getting ideas above our station, so to speak. Name me one case where a rights holder has challenged any bulketin biard to remove their trademark. It isn't as uf we're besmerching its name!


Title: Trade Mark issues
Post by: inspector_blakey on August 15, 2011, 15:20:02
I would be inclined to defer to willc's long experience of the print media on this one I think - if there is a risk, no matter how small, of finding oneself on the sharp end of a solicitor's letter from a large and potentially litigious company then it's best avoided, especially when it's very easy to do so.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, please could we force ourselves back to the point of this thread, rather than discussing the niceties of different types of road surface? This particular turn of events has taken any supposed 'tradition of pedantry' to something of an extreme. Thank you all.


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on August 15, 2011, 21:44:16
Indeed: thank you all.  :-X

These past few posts have now been split off from the 'London to the Cotswolds' thread, where they originally appeared - simply because they are well 'off-topic' from that specific discussion.

Chris.  ;)


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on August 15, 2011, 22:09:10
 ;D platform underfoot grippy sometimes but shouldnt be slippy stuff  :P


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: JayMac on August 15, 2011, 22:22:19
Quick! Get that trademarked relex.  ;D


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on August 15, 2011, 22:37:32
patent pending !!!!


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: ellendune on August 15, 2011, 23:58:46
I was not seeking to set a hare running on trademark issues.  Just to correct the use of the word Asphalt.


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: JayMac on August 16, 2011, 03:20:16
patent pending !!!!

I'm in. But I'll need 40% of the equity.  ;D


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: Mookiemoo on August 16, 2011, 10:03:07
Isnt thiws getting into hoover territory


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 16, 2011, 13:23:54
Isnt thiws getting into hoover territory

Or, even more pertinent to the railway industry, 'Tannoy' territory?


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: JayMac on August 16, 2011, 13:29:07
Also pertinent to the 'rail enthusiast' community - 'Thermos'.  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: bobm on August 16, 2011, 13:59:39
patent pending !!!!

I mis-read that as "pedant pending" initially!


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on August 16, 2011, 18:18:37
With relex109, anything is possible!  ;) :D ;D

And, as a development on the theme of this new topic: the term B^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_B%C3%ADr%C3%B3) has sadly become synonymous with 'ball point pen': my B^ is actually a Parker.  ::) :P :-X


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: bobm on August 16, 2011, 18:20:42
All my writing implements are Parkers - even the pencil.  Can't stand those nasty plastic throwaway pens.  What a snob!   ;D


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: JayMac on August 16, 2011, 18:23:27
Mine are 20 for a quid from Poundland... ;D


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on August 16, 2011, 19:26:25
can we all stop using trademarks and brand names please it really is a huge issue, were dyson with law suits


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on August 16, 2011, 21:22:13
All my writing implements are Parkers - even the pencil.

Soulmate!  ;D


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: bobm on August 16, 2011, 21:26:55
Still got the Parker I did my O Levels with - shows how old it is!


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: devon_metro on August 16, 2011, 23:50:49
My parker pens have always broken, so i've gone to the cheapo 'Bic' Biros nicked from various offices and workplaces*  ;D



*Said in jest, obviously  ;)


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: inspector_blakey on August 17, 2011, 02:08:33
the term B^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_B%C3%ADr%C3%B3) has sadly become synonymous with 'ball point pen'

Not necessarily... I was met with a extremely blank looks when I asked the secretary in my new workplace (not my secretary, sadly, I can dream I suppose) if there were any biros in the stationery cupboard. Turns out they're always called ball points in the US.


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: Tim on August 17, 2011, 10:18:16
Just because something is in common use does not mean that a company won't defend its trademark. I can assure you the Tarmac company is still quite keen on protecting its rights, though perhaps without the sheer determination of the manufacturers of a certain type of whirlpool bath or of a well known kind of mobile building - both brands one might say are "in the English language". Both parties are very keen on dispatching lawyers' letters to all and sundry about infringements of their trademark rights, I have seen them at work a good few times. As for "no court case would stand up" - want to bet? That's why it's best to avoid the risk in the first place by using generic terminology, though perhaps not DBM or bitmac...

Anyway, returning to the point of this thread, all looking on target for a resumption of service at Moreton-in-Marsh tomorrow, with the new signal operational, along with the point rodding for the crossover, and lots of other new s&t kit plugged in around the station area.



This reminds me of the Mohamed cartoons.  All the papers trying to discuss them but none brave enough to print them.   Just because something is a Trademark doesn't mean that you are not allowed to use the word.  Trademark infringemnt requires the infringing use to "be in the course of trade"


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: ChrisB on August 17, 2011, 10:52:50
Quite. There is NO problem on this board  ::)


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: Mookiemoo on August 17, 2011, 14:27:35
I have two limited edition mont blancs

I was sick to death of people walking off with my parkers/cross pens so I bought two pens worth a sm all fortune that its unlikely anyone else on the same site will have

Have not had to replace since!


Title: Re: Trade Mark issues
Post by: stebbo on September 08, 2011, 20:58:26
Put the trade mark in capitals or use the TM symbol - so MONT BALNC pens....



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net