Conference 7.286::digital

    Yeah.   A "VAX-compatible" thing could be a vacuum cleaner (no kidding).

>Note 569.2 by DWOVAX::YOUNG "formerly CHOVAX::YOUNG"
>Re.0: Shouldn't you change your personal name then?

Shouldn't you change your nodename?

/john

    Re .3:
    
>< Note 569.3 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >
>
>
>>Note 569.2 by DWOVAX::YOUNG "formerly CHOVAX::YOUNG"
>>Re.0: Shouldn't you change your personal name then?
>
>Shouldn't you change your nodename?

    This may come as a shock, but we in the field do not get a choice
    of what our nodes are named, in fact we do not get a choice of what
    node we can use.  And we most certainly do NOT get our own VAX...
    uh, computing system (I hate this already) or VAXstation (is this
    a noun or what?) that we can do whatever we want with.
    
    You see, instead we get these cars.  Oops, I mean we USED to these
    cars.  Now we get nothing.  Hell, we do not even get any real training
    any more...
    
    But I digress.
    
    
    --  Barry (tm)  "One of the Young family of persons."

    
    Hey, now wait a second! I chose that nodename myself about 5 years
    ago! Just seemed to make sense at the time...
    
    I guess I should have called it DWOVAXCOMPUTINGSYSTEM. Shame Phase
    V and DNS wasn't around backthen...
    
    -Ray
    
    

    Tell you what boys...
    
    	You get the Company "A" plan back on line, and I'll call 'em
    any dam*'d thing you want...
    
    
    	Lou "Who wonders if we more for trademarks than people?" Northern

    Just out of curiosity [I'm not sure I understood this properly from
    the base note]:  What is the correct way to make VAX plural?  Is
    it injurous to the trademark to say VAXs?  Or should it be VAX systems,
    as was done with the possessive modification?  Or is it, in and
    of itself, plural??
    
    

    re: .7
    
>    Is it injurous to the trademark to say VAXs?
    
    Yes.
    
    Remember that trademarks should be used only as adjectives;
    they should never stand alone.  "VAX systems", "VAX processors",
    "VAX computers", and "VAX CPUs" are all correct usage.  "VAXs",
    "VAXen", and "VAX" (when used alone) are examples of incorrect
    usage.
    

.0>              I have received copies of several Legal Department memos
.0>         and agreements recently  in which there are misuses of our 
.0>         VAX trademark, such as the following:
.0>              
.0>                   1. Use of a hyphen with VAX;  e.g.,"VAX-compatible"
.0>                   2. Use of VAX in the plural; e.g., "VAXES"
.0>        
.0>              As a trademark, VAX is an adjective and not a noun.  To 
.0>         use it as a noun, i.e., by putting a hyphen with it or 
.0>         putting it in the plural when it is singular infers it is a 
.0>         descriptive noun and thereby undermines its trademark 
.0>         significance.

        RE: .7 -- If you re-read .0, you'll see that one of the things
        you are not supposed to do with a trademark (such as "VAX")
        is use it as a noun.  There is no way to make a plural from
        an adjective, and that is how a trademark is supposed to be
        used (that is, as a qualifier for a noun).
        
        Tom

    re .9 (Tom):
    
        > .................. There is no way to make a plural from
        >an adjective ...
    
    Other than in the following sentence:
    
    "There are four `sensational's in the advertising copy."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    
    Sorry, but it was hard to resist.

    �    "There are four `sensational's in the advertising copy."

    I would dispute that the word 'sensational' here is an adjective.
    It is clearly a noun in this context, meaning:
         "the word 'sensational'"
    

    [Sorry, I REALLY couldn't resist]
    
    

Several questions spring immediately to mind:

1) Does this mean that I will have to change the sentence "VAXen are like oxen"
in my VAXcluster presentation (excuse me, my "VAXcluster computer system
presentation") to "VAX computers are like ox animals" or some such sentence?

2) Shouldn't we change the logos on our computers to read "VAX 11/780 Computer
System" instead of "VAX 11/780" and so forth?

3) Why don't we hear things like: "Coke soft drink is it."  "This Bud beer's
for you." "Have you driven a Ford automobile lately?"

Seriously, I'd like to know why using a trademark as a noun should always
undermine it.  I can understand Asprin, Kodak, Xerox, Frigidaire, etc. since
these were the first or early trademarks for their respective goods, so it
would be easy to confuse the trademark with the generic.  But there are lots of
automobiles around that aren't Fords, lots of beers that aren't Budweisers, and
lots of computers that aren't VAXen.  I'm sure this has something to do with
legal precedent, but what was the logic behind it?  And why should it worry DEC
and not Ford, Anheuser-Busch, or Coca Cola?

Steve

RE: .-1

	Don't include Coca-Cola in that group of "don't-cares" about 
trademark misuse!  They regularly send out "inspectors" to go to Pepsi 
fountain vendors and ask for a "Coke".  If the the vendor doesn't correct 
them, a lawyer pays the next visit!

	Coca-Cola is a master of the trademark and proprietary data protection 
game.

    Aspirin is a special case. Prior to World War I, it was a trade name of
    the German company that made acetylsalisylic(sp?) acid a product. WWI
    German-bashing in the US courts removed apirin as a US tradename. I
    think it's still a tradename in other countries. I may be wrong. 

    I thought VAX was an acronym for Virtual Addressing Extension. The word
    "Extension" is a noun, modified by the adjectives "Virtual" and
    "Addressing". How can the abbreviation for a noun be an adjective??? 
    
    							Pat

    Re .15:
    
    > How can the abbreviation for a noun be an adjective??? 
    
    Nouns can be used as adjectives, as in "newspaper reporter".
    
    
    				-- edp

    re: .13
    
    I believe the point of .12 is that the use of a trademark as a *noun*
    is a "don't care" item for many corporations (e.g., "Coke is it!")
    
    re: .14
    
    Last I was there, Canada had an Aspirin trademark which was for
    the company which manufactures Bayer Aspirin in the US.

>    Last I was there, Canada had an Aspirin trademark which was for
>    the company which manufactures Bayer Aspirin in the US.

Bayer-Leverkusen is the German Company mentioned in .14.

    "DIGITAL has it now."

    MATT

Excuse me, but has anyone claimed at *all* trademarks must be adjectives?

Our legal department says that "VAX" must be used as an adjective to protect
the trademark, but that doesn't mean that "DIGITAL" must be used as an
adjective.

/john

    From the Trademark Handbook for Digital Employees: Guidelines For
    Using Trademarks:
    
    "Use Your Trademarks as Adjectives
    
    Trademarks indicate the source of the product or service, not the
    product or service itself. Your trademark must always be followed
    by a noun. "
    
    RE: DIGITAL ...it does not appear as a trademark in the Trademark
    Handbook. Therefore, I gather it does not need to be used as an
    adjective. 
    
    regards,
    
    joan
    

    Yet the Digital logo is trademarked.  I don't understand.

    Re .last_few:
    
    You can trademark an image.  The Digital logo is an image.
    
    DIGITAL (all upper case) is used less often now than Digital (initial
    cap only) to refer to the corporation.  Usually, in copy, the name,
    "Digital Equipment Corporation," is spelled out the first time,
    followed by "Digital" alone, obviously a shortened reference to
    the corporation in the context of what's being presented.  To be
    sure, "digital" as a word cannot be copyrighted; it's the data format
    that contrasts with "analog[ue]" in computation, etc.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Actually, "digital" (the word) means, "pertaining to fingers". 
    The first definition of "digit" is "finger or toe", and "digital"
    is simply the adjective derived from it.  Since people counted on
    their fingers, the word came to have a mathematical meaning.
    
    Hence, digital equipment refers to gloves, rings, nail polish, etc.
    Honest. 
    
    A digital Vax is a British vacuum cleaner that you can lift with
    your fingers?

    < Note 569.24 by DELNI::GOLDSTEIN "or my evil twin stealing my account" >
   
    I think there is some misunderstanding on your part.  If you
    look at the American Heritage Dictionary (Office edition) you
    will see that DIGIT has two meanings one) which you mention 
    a finger or toe, and two) any of the arabic numerals, 0 through
    9.  I think in Computer Science, and Electrical Engineering
    it is the second meaning that we use when we use words DIGIT 
    and DIGITAL.  This can be seen from the entry next to DIGITAL 
    in the same dicitionary which is DIGITAL COMPUTER.  Also any 
    dictionary which mentions the usage will confirm this.

    Let's just kick all the silly lawyers out of this company (country,
    too) and just get back to the business of making and selling and
    supporting VAXes!!!!!!!!!
    
    Sounds like a cost cutting idea too...
    
    Larry

        re .26
        
        Without our lawyers, we would be swallowed up by Plug compatible
        manufacturers so fast it would make your head spin.
        
        pyhi.
        
        q
        

>    < Note 569.27 by BUNYIP::QUODLING "Anything! Just play it loud!" >
>        pyhi.
    
    Uh, rathole question, 'q'..   what's 'pyhi' ?? 
    
    (I) Pity Your Honest Ignorance
    Per Your Hosehead Instructions
    ...    

    re .26:
>   ...just get back to the business of making and selling an
>   supporting VAXes!!!!!!!!!

    I'll save a lawyer the trouble - you do, of course, mean "VAX
    computers", don't you?

    Mike

        RE:  Use of trademarks.  An earlier reply referenced the 
        

                    TRADEMARK HANDBOOK FOR DIGITAL EMPLOYEES
           DOCUMENT IDENTIFIER:  A-MN-EL00490-00-0 REV B, 31-Jul-1987
  
  
  Copies of this document can be ordered from:
                         Standards and Methods Control,
                       LJO1/I2, DTN: 226-2482, JOKUR::SMC
  

        The document can also be obtained on-line from the VTX LAW
        infobase in the Corporate VTX Library.  (I'll be happy to MAIL
        a copy to anyone who doesn't have access to VTX -- just send
        me mail asking for it.)
        
        It is very interesting reading, and confirms all the things
        that were said in the memo reproduced in the topic note, and
        more.
        
        Tom

    Sorry Tom, but LJO1 has been empty since November.  So, readers
    please do not send your mail there.
    Thanks.
    Joe C.
    PS:  no, I don't know where that group is now!
    

    They went to BXC, Joe.
    
    						=maggie

    Assuming you mean Standards and Methods Control (SMC), we're in
    Chelmsford, MA, at:
    
	          CTS1-2/D4, 287-3724, JOKUR::SMC
    
    But, we'd now really prefer our customers to order documents using
    our new VTX application at:
    
    			     $ VTX SMC    
    

    Re: .21
    
    Where can I get a copy of the "Trademark Handbook for Digital
    Employees: Guidelines for Using Trademarks" mentioned in .21.
    
    What I really want to find out is if "Unibus", or some such variant, is
    a Digital (Equipment Corporation) trademark, and exactly how I should
    use it in DEC STD 032, the VAX Architecture Standard. 

    Re .35 (Tom):
    
    Ther's an easier solution.  Go to VTX, scroll to the LAW section
    (99) to get Corporate Library listings; and call it up.  In there,
    you'll find a listing of ALL Digital trademarks; it's updated pretty
    regularly (included are no-longer-common trademarks, liker GLC-8,
    BTW).
    
    As It happens, UNIBUS is a trademark.  As with any trademark, it
    shouldn't be used as a noun.  Thus, "UNIBUS data path," or the somewhat
    redundant "UNIBUS asynchronous bus" would be acceptable, whereas
    "Digital's UNIBUS was the first implementation of a combines
    data/command bus," even if factually unchallenged, would be an
    incorrect use of the word UNIBUS.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    EL00490-00, "Trademark Handbook for Digital Employees: Guidelines for
    Using Trademarks" is available from Standards and Methods Control.  
    
    Try using the new VTX interface ($ VTX SMC) or send name, mailstop,
    cost center, badge, and document wanted to JOKUR::SMC.
    
    There are two related parts to this document you might be interested in:
    
    EL00490-01  "Trademark Handbook for Digital Employees: Digital
                 Trademarks List"
    
    EL00490-02  "Trademark Handbook for Digital Employees: Third-Party
                 Trademarks List"
    

        RE: .37 -- If you don't want to pay (yes, there is an internal
        charge) for the hardcopy documents, or wait for them, and you
        don't need hardcopy, or can get by with printing your own on
        a local printer, and you do have VTX:
        
        Then access the LAW infobase (the command VTX LAW at the DCL
        prompt should get you there, if VTX is set up in the usual
        way on your system).  The trademark handbook (EL-00490-00)
        and the list of Digital trademarks (-01) are both there, as
        options 2 and 3 on the first menu.  The list of third-party
        trademarks is not; I don't know why it's not, but I will try
        to get in touch with the person responsible for the infobase
        and suggest that they put it on-line.
        
        Tom

  I was checking with the Law Department today on a question regarding the
  proper use of trademarks.  The question was: "When we use somebody else's
  trademark in the text and put the TM symbol next to it, do we also put in
  a footnote the owner of that trademark?"

  The answer is "Yes."  If we don't say whose trademark it is, the reader
  may assume that we mean it is a trademark of Digital's.  If we don't
  identify the owner of the trademark, then we should not use the trademark
  symbol at all!

  So, all you folks who have been trying to be good and put "tm" after
  "Unix" without saying whose trademark "Unix" is, you might as well not
  bother, or you're doing more harm than good.

  The Law Department person (Angela Busby) also said that in informal,
  internal communication, we shouldn't have to worry about identifying
  trademarks as such.  It is when the copy is for publication that we
  should be careful to identify trademarks (including our own).

  --Simon

  P.S.  I would have put this note in the LAWS notesfile, but it seems that
  MOSAIC::LAWS is defunct.

    We may be soon in for some interesting legal tangles because Sears
    is about to import to the US (from the UK) a vacuum cleaner called 
    the VAX.  Keep your eyes peeled for info anywhere.
    
    ........ Suchindran

    The vacuum cleaner is regularly advertised here (UK) on T.V. and
    elsewhere. I guess we have some form of `live and let live' agreement
    with the manufacturers as they've been selling VAXes (the cleaners)
    almost as long as we've been selling VAXes (the computers).
    And, as a matter of VAX (sorry) I think it's quite a hoot - and
    I don't think our customers get confused. There's even a possible
    advertising angle on this...."Let our VAX computer systems do for
    your data what a VAX cleaner does for your carpet" et al.
    
    M
    

    re: .40
    
    Under U.S. Federal law the use of "VAX" as the name of a vacuum cleaner
    would not be infringement of Digital's trademark because the two
    products are entirely different, hence there is no chance of consumers
    becoming confused.  Some states do have what are known as anti-dilution
    statutes which might apply.
    
    re: .41
    
    I seem to recall reading in a notesfile some time ago that the
    vacuum cleaner company had an ad compaign which used the slogan
    "VAX sucks".

The VAX Vaccuum cleaner predates the VAX computer by some years. 

They indeed had a flier whose headline was...

                       "NOTHING SUCKS LIKE A VAX"

:-) :-)

- Andy

	... sponsored by Sales and Software training has a great skit based on
selling a "VAX".  I wish I had heard that line about "sucks" when I was teaching
it!

    To keep this going a bit longer, a pharmacy chain in the UK called
    Boots (similar to but much better than the likes of CVS here in the US)
    has a diaper product called ALL-IN-1. Clearly there is a major product
    differentiation here so no trademark problem but some customers and
    certainly our competitors do perceive that they do have one thing in
    common ......  Anybody care to guess ? (answers by mail only please !) 

    Jon

        Vax vacuum cleaners are also sold here in Australia. ( I have
        photocopies of adverts if anyone is interested.) They are a
        registered trademark. Which is interesting as it appears DEC legal
        haven't bothered registering a lot of the Standard DEC Trademarks
        in Australia.....
        
        
        q
        

    My understanding about the vacuum cleaners is that Digital has
    an agreement with the vacuum cleaner company about the use of the
    name VAX in their markets.
    
    And we don't register trademarks unless there is some clear legal
    benefit in doing so.
    
    				Steve

See UK_Digital #4.26 onwards...

Dave.

And how many of you remember "Trax Wax"?

-steve-

    At this very moment, I am wearing my Trax sneakers.  Really.

    
       And of course, don't forget the ALL-IN-1 pet store along Rt. 3 in
    Merrimack.  (I have a hard time convincing myself that some engineer
    didn't lift it from the store, but that's personal opinion.)
    
    					-mjg
    

>     <<< Note 569.45 by SPGBAS::MAURER "We come in peace; Shoot to kill" >>>

>    certainly our competitors do perceive that they do have one thing in
>    common ......  Anybody care to guess ? (answers by mail only please !) 

 Sounds like it could be similar to a spoonerism of the famous Unisys
 logo 'the power of two' :-)

	Craig

    continuing the rathole,
    
    Arizona's Valley National Bank offers 'All-In-One' checking accounts
    
    karl

        RE: .51 -- The name of the pet food store (as listed in their
        ad in the NYNEX Yellow Pages) is "ALL in 1 Pet Place", which,
        from the perspective of trademark law, is a world apart from
        "ALL-IN-1", the name of our software product.
        
        Likewise, re: .53,  the fact that Arizona's Valley National Bank
        offers 'All-In-One' checking accounts is irrelevant to our use of
        "ALL-IN-1" as a trademark for a software product. 
        
        What is relevant, with regard to trademarks, is that the person or
        organization that claims the trademark be consistent about its use
        (e.g., typography and part of speech), encourage other parties to
        be consistent (e.g., through letters to the editor of publications
        that misuse it), and be aggressive in protecting it from those who
        would usurp it (e.g., organizations that attempt to use it as
        their own trademark for a similar product, or attempt to use a
        trademark that is so similar as to cause confusion in the market
        place).  [The above is my opinion, but I'm not a lawyer.]
        
        Tom

re Note 569.54 by DR::BLINN:

>         RE: .51 -- The name of the pet food store (as listed in their
>         ad in the NYNEX Yellow Pages) is "ALL in 1 Pet Place", which,
>         from the perspective of trademark law, is a world apart from
>         "ALL-IN-1", the name of our software product.
>         
>         Likewise, re: .53,  the fact that Arizona's Valley National Bank
>         offers 'All-In-One' checking accounts is irrelevant to our use of
>         "ALL-IN-1" as a trademark for a software product. 
  
        Perhaps not.  I do know that our corporate trademark lawyers
        at times request changes to proposed trademarks (and even
        names that we will use in documentation, but may not be
        considering as trademarks) if they look or sound SIMILAR to
        some other company's trademarks.  Apparently, exact identity
        isn't always required for infringement.

        (Standard disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.)
        Bob

        Bob, I suspect we're in "violent agreement".  What we require of
        ourselves may well be a higher standard than what we can ask of
        (or force upon) others.  After all, we have deeper pockets than
        the average pet food store.  Avoiding a lawsuit over a trademark
        through careful choice up front is LOTS cheaper than defending a
        lawsuit (no matter how poorly warranted) later on. 
        
        Tom