Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6193 comp.os.mach:2112 comp.org.eff.talk:9017 misc.int-property:499 comp.unix.bsd:4910 Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!constellation!unmvax!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!basset.utah.edu!hollaar From: hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark? Date: 11 Sep 92 13:24:56 MDT Message-ID: <1992Sep11.132456.1985@hellgate.utah.edu> Summary: The "Anti-Monopoly" case is bad law Organization: University of Utah CS Dept References: <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <farrow.716074432@fido.Colorado.EDU> <18ns8rINNd81@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Sep11.084516.16908@infodev.cam.ac.uk> <BuF6nF.6nG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Distribution: inet Lines: 18 In article <BuF6nF.6nG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng) writes: >I don't think commercial use matters. Parker Brothers (I think) used >to have "Monopoly" as a registered trademark until a few years. The >court ruled the word Monopoly is in such common use that it could no >longer be a trademark. In Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group (the owner of Parker Bros.), 684 F.2d 1316, 216 U.S.P.Q. 588, (Ninth Circuit, 1982), the court held that "Monopoly" had become generic because it had become associated with a product and not the source of that product. (65% of people surveyed wanted a Monopoly game because they wanted to play the game with Boardwalk and hotels, while 32% wanted to play a Parker Bros. game.) Congress acted almost made changes to the Lanham Act (the trademark law) to reverse the holding in the Anti-Monopoly case (Trademark Clarification Act of 1984, P.L. 98-620). So the Anti-Monopoly decision is now "bad law" and not relevant to much of anything.