First, any word can be used as a trademark.
Any word, even so-called generic
ones.
Don't believe me? Here are some examples.
Shell is generic for the mollusk. But is it generic for oil products?
Tide is generic for the waves. But is it generic for detergent?
Caterpillar is generic for the larva. But is it generic for construction gear?
Still don't believe even so-called generic single words can't be trademarks? Go
to uspto.gov and search for them.
If anything, generic words cannot be trademarks for their generic definitions.
Shell can't be a trademark to sell sea shells, or tide to maybe advertise wave-
creating equipment, or caterpillar to sell caterpillars.
However, trademark law allows one to use a generic word that's
distinctively
different from what people know them to
descriptively be. Look up suggestive
and arbitrary trademarks to give you some ideas how they're classified.
I make this post because I've seen a few arguing that a company can't have
a trademark for a generic word. Well, what's the definition of a trademark?
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/trade_defin.htm
So if the word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of any of them, is
able to identify and distinguish the source of the goods of one party from a
bunch of others, then it's a trademark. Don't Shell, Tide, Caterpillar, or even
maybe bet identify and distinguish the source of the goods (or services as in
a service mark) of one from others as evidenced by their registrations?
Ideally, a trademark (well, Federal) registration, as John Berryhill explained in a
different thread before, is prima facie proof that the mark had then acquired
distinctiveness. If you disagree on any of them, then feel free to dispute any
of those registrations using any of their respective processes.
So...enough with this nonsense about generic or descriptive words cannot be
trademarks. Any of you may continue to argue such incredible bullcrap of such
words cannot be trademarks no matter what, but some laws and a couple of
undisputed facts show
they can be under limited circumstances.
Indeed. Lots of people made noises about alleged TM abuse, but...errr...what
happened?
If anything, perhaps there ought to have been more and arguably more strict
screening requirements for (supposed) TM holders. But whether there ought to
be more of that or not is up to the powers that be.
Then again, I've noticed it's conveniently easier to believe there's corruption
and widespread conspiracy, even if it's not necessarily true. Hard to say if it's
true or not, but anyone accusing anybody of such had better come up with a
bit more substantial stuff if you want to be taken seriously.
(Personally, it's a good thing I didn't participate in the Sunrise period and all. I
figured it wouldn't be worth my time and money.)
