Warriors using "Rolodex" in their product name open to Legal Action !!!

by Pluton
35 replies
Warriors using "Rolodex" in their product name open to Legal Action !!!

Product descriptions such as Amazon Rolodex, Autoresponder Rolodex, Solo Ad Rolodex and Traffic Rolodex are a few that come to mind.

Looking through the Warrior forums, mainly the Warrior Special Offers, there are many products for sale using the word "Rolodex in their product name.

As I understand that the word "Rolodex" is a Trademark belonging to some corporation are these users of the description "Rolodex" open to prosecution under the law ?

Is it a description that has slipped into common usage ?

Any constructive comments ?
#action #legal #open #product #rolodex #warriors
  • Profile picture of the author SamanthaB
    Banned
    I don`t really think that a company would just open a law suit against a forum thread. And if that happens, they`ll just change their swipe. The domains are not to play with. Buying a domain name that has a trademark in it can surely make you end up losing it, along with your entire website. It happened in the past.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976328].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author wolfmmiii
      Originally Posted by SamanthaB View Post

      I don`t really think that a company would just open a law suit against a forum thread.
      Actually, trademark law REQUIRES trademark holders to defend their trademarks whenever they are made aware of infringement. Otherwise, they forfeit their rights to the trademark.
      Signature
      Want a REAL Online Business That's Fun to Run?
      CLICK HERE FOR INFO
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976428].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SamanthaB
        Banned
        Originally Posted by wolfmmiii View Post

        Actually, trademark law REQUIRES trademark holders to defend their trademarks whenever they are made aware of infringement. Otherwise, they forfeit their rights to the trademark.
        That's something new to me. Anyhow, a simple google search will bring a lot of results for their trademark, so maybe they don`t want to be aware of this situation
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976437].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Devin X
          Banned
          Originally Posted by wolfmmiii View Post

          Actually, trademark law REQUIRES trademark holders to defend their trademarks whenever they are made aware of infringement. Otherwise, they forfeit their rights to the trademark.
          Absolutely correct, and it would behoof warriors to make sure that they do not use trademarks in their publications/productions unless they have explicit permission to do so.


          Originally Posted by SamanthaB View Post

          That's something new to me. Anyhow, a simple google search will bring a lot of results for their trademark, so maybe they don`t want to be aware of this situation
          Doesn't surprise me because IMO, a lot of people aren't well versed in business or communication laws...or any laws for that matter.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976576].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author angela99
    Yes, ditto to what other posters have said: Rolodex is a trademark, so anyone using the term is in violation of the mark.

    See "Rolodex" is a registered trademark: ROLODEX - Reviews & Brand Information - BEROL CORPORATION Atlanta, GA - Serial Number: 78979531

    Interesting: Is*it legal to use the word Rolodex in my company name?

    "Unfortunately for you, it appears that "Rolodex" is a registered trademark. If it is, you may *not* use it you own company name or for your product or service."

    Also, for writers: Trademark Law for ... Dunderheads | Poynter. --

    "For example ... Rolodex. I believe we once said to people, "Don't use 'Rolodex' as a metaphoric term. That is, if a consultant leaves one candidate to go to another, don't write that he's taking his Rolodex with him. You're using a proprietary term in a metaphoric sense."

    In practical terms, is it likely that a trademark holder would go after someone running a WSO?

    Perhaps it's unlikely. However, it's more than possible. Trademark holders risk losing their mark if they fail to defend it.

    People have to make their own decisions about the risks they take... :-)

    Cheers

    Angela
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976716].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Pluton View Post

    As I understand that the word "Rolodex" is a Trademark belonging to some corporation are these users of the description "Rolodex" open to prosecution under the law ?
    No, surely not? Trademarks relate to civil law, not to criminal law? I'd think such people would be open to being sued, as is anyone who breaches others' civil law rights - not prosecuted?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976721].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Hill
    Well let's see here... The name McDonalds is trademarked but other businesses use it in their name as long as it isn't competing with the trade mark holder in their business. I see McDonald's Hardware, etc...

    So, the term Rolodex, if you are using it to refer to a directory can you be sued?

    The definition of Rolodex is: "A Rolodex is a rotating file device used to store business contact information."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Mike Hill View Post

      I see McDonald's Hardware, etc...
      Yes, this is perfectly true, but there are plenty of people called McDonald, aren't there? I don't think there are plenty of things called "Rolodex", just by coincidence, are there? Why would anyone not involved in the same line of business as Rolodex be using the word, anyway? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that it might be much harder to make out that that was "coincidental"? :confused:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7976952].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Pluton
        Thanks everyone for your comments.

        I think the consensus is that to be totally in the clear it should not be used as it would infringe rights belonging to others.

        You may get away with it as others appear to be doing but maybe not !

        I'll have to think of Plan B ! :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983490].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          McDonald's Hardware
          Maybe if your name is John Rolodex you could use it to advertise your hardware or shoe store.

          The problem is using Rolodex to give the inference of an "extensive file" which is what the term was trademarked for.

          Very simply - if you are titling a product and you want to use a word you've heard of before...just check the trademarks and stay safe.

          There can be financial consequences - but even if there aren't legal costs involved you may find yourself working hard to build up a site or launch a product only to have to shut it down. That's a cost in itself.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983531].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Maybe if your name is John Rolodex you could use it to advertise your hardware or shoe store.
            Now you have me very curious to know what kind of shoes "John Rolodex" might sell. (Not to mention whether "Jean Louboutin" is going to start selling data storage devices.) Not that I have any particular interest in the footwear markets at all, of course ...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983624].message }}
  • So are you saying that if we created a product to help people fix their marketing mistakes,

    we then should not call it:

    "Internet marketing Boo boo Band-Aids®" ?
    Signature
    Arnold Stolting - Stolting Media Group
    "I LOVE The Song! The Vibe Is Positive And Firm!" - Kymani Marley. (Son of Bob Marley).

    "Very High Quality!" Jeremy Harding - Manager / Producer. Sean Paul.
    "They Are FANTASTIC!" - Willie Crawford.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983646].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author onSubie
      Originally Posted by stoltingmediagroup View Post

      So are you saying that if we created a product to help people fix their marketing mistakes,

      we then should not call it:

      "Internet marketing Boo boo Band-Aids®" ?
      Exactly. And if you write a book for real estate agents, you can't call it "Money Making Realtor® Secrets".

      Surprising Generic Terms That Were Once Trademarks
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983732].message }}
  • And we can't dry their tears with Internet Marketing Kleenex® ?
    Signature
    Arnold Stolting - Stolting Media Group
    "I LOVE The Song! The Vibe Is Positive And Firm!" - Kymani Marley. (Son of Bob Marley).

    "Very High Quality!" Jeremy Harding - Manager / Producer. Sean Paul.
    "They Are FANTASTIC!" - Willie Crawford.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983752].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Alexa -

      John Rolodex would sell Rolo and Dexter brand shoes - but not circular files.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983894].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author onSubie
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Alexa -

        John Rolodex would sell Rolo and Dexter brand shoes - but not circular files.
        Similar to the nissan.com case. A man named Uzi Nissan owned nissan.com for his computer repair business when Nissan automotive was still Datsun.

        He also used the domain for his car sales business.

        When Datsun changed their name to Nissan, they sued him for the domain.

        He still has the domain (and publishes the entire legal story there) but the court ruled that it was infringing when he started marketing auto related services.

        So even though "Nissan" didn't exist when he registered the domain, and even though his name really was Nissan, he still could not use it in the area of automotive due to Nissan automotive's claim.

        But he is free to own it and use it for other purposes like "Nissan Computers" as it is currently branded.

        Uzi Nissan very recently (this year) changed the site design. It now redirects most links to the case material archived at digest.com and the main page of nissan.com is a car insurance CPA offer,

        Nissan (the car company) is now trying to register their tradename for computers and computer peripherals, presumably in direct response to this case.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7984041].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author J Bold
          Originally Posted by onSubie View Post

          Similar to the nissan.com case. A man named Uzi Nissan owned nissan.com for his computer repair business when Nissan automotive was still Datsun.

          He also used the domain for his car sales business.

          When Datsun changed their name to Nissan, they sued him for the domain.

          He still has the domain (and publishes the entire legal story there) but the court ruled that it was infringing when he started marketing auto related services.

          So even though "Nissan" didn't exist when he registered the domain, and even though his name really was Nissan, he still could not use it in the area of automotive due to Nissan automotive's claim.

          But he is free to own it and use it for other purposes like "Nissan Computers" as it is currently branded.

          Uzi Nissan very recently (this year) changed the site design. It now redirects most links to the case material archived at digest.com and the main page of nissan.com is a car insurance CPA offer,

          Nissan (the car company) is now trying to register their tradename for computers and computer peripherals, presumably in direct response to this case.

          One of the most ridiculous cases of corporate bullying in my opinion. Glad he still has the domain.

          My lawyer friend said it was a big part of one of his classes on trademarks, this case.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7985202].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Cash37
          Originally Posted by onSubie View Post

          Similar to the nissan.com case. A man named Uzi Nissan owned nissan.com for his computer repair business when Nissan automotive was still Datsun.

          He also used the domain for his car sales business.

          When Datsun changed their name to Nissan, they sued him for the domain.

          He still has the domain (and publishes the entire legal story there) but the court ruled that it was infringing when he started marketing auto related services.

          So even though "Nissan" didn't exist when he registered the domain, and even though his name really was Nissan, he still could not use it in the area of automotive due to Nissan automotive's claim.

          But he is free to own it and use it for other purposes like "Nissan Computers" as it is currently branded.

          Uzi Nissan very recently (this year) changed the site design. It now redirects most links to the case material archived at digest.com and the main page of nissan.com is a car insurance CPA offer,

          Nissan (the car company) is now trying to register their tradename for computers and computer peripherals, presumably in direct response to this case.
          Who really owns a domain when they can do this crap
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7985534].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author WillR
            Originally Posted by Cash37 View Post

            Who really owns a domain when they can do this crap
            It's not really crap.

            With the amount of domains being registered every single day of the week, it's impossible for people to know who is out there using what domains. So if Nissan trademarks their name and a guy has been using the word Nissan to sell automotive services, it's more than fair for Nissan to claim that domain or stop him from using it. That's what trademark law is all about.

            Without trademark law then how do you stop people from using your business name or reputation for their own personal gain? It can't possibly matter whether the domain was registered before or after the business trademarked the term. That would mean Mr Nissan could still use his domain to sell automotive services. That would send the complete wrong impression and could mislead customers. So it has to be taken away from him and I think that is understandable and more than fair.

            If Mr Nissan was really concerned about using his name to sell cars then he had every opportunity to go and trademark that name for himself (before Nissan company did) but I guess he chose not to. So this is what happens.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7985569].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author davezan
      Originally Posted by stoltingmediagroup View Post

      And we can't dry their tears with Internet Marketing Kleenex® ?
      iPad may join Aspirin, Heroin, as generic name, branding experts say | Fox News

      To prevent their names from becoming generic, some companies use marketing to reinforce their trademarks. For instance, after its Band-Aid brand name started becoming commonly used to refer to adhesive bandages, Johnson & Johnsons changed its jingle in ads from "I'm Stuck on Band-Aid" to "I'm Stuck on Band-Aid brand."

      ...

      Kleenex uses "Kleenex brand" instead of just "Kleenex" on its packaging and in marketing and places ads to remind people Kleenex is trademarked. And the company contacts some people who use Kleenex generically to refer to tissue in order to correct them.
      Signature

      David

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7985178].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    Trademarks are misunderstood by a lot of people. For you to infringe on a trademark it needs to be proven that customers would be confused between your business and the business that owns the trademark. If people are being led to believe or they would easily assume affiliation between yourself and the main brand/trademark, that is when you have issues.

    Example:

    Apple has the word Apple trademarked. But this does NOT mean no one else can use the word Apple. I can sell apples (the fruit) on the side of the road and use the word apple all day long. The reason being that people driving past are not going to be confused and misled to believe I am part of the Apple brand. Now if I were instead sitting on the side of the road and selling laptop computers and using the word Apple on my sign, people could very easily assume affiliation between myself and the Apple brand. I would definitely have something to answer for and Apple could and would likely sue me for that.

    Let's take another example. Have you heard of the website called Paypalsucks.com? Do you not think Paypal have tried to have that site taken down numerous times? Ofcourse they have. But it still exists to this day and the reason being that although they have used the trademarked word Paypal in their website title, consumers are not going to be misled into thinking it is a website created and run by Paypal. Afterall, it says Paypalsucks so it's pretty clear it has no affiliation with the real brand.

    I'm not sure who trademarked the term rolodex or for what industry it was trademarked for. It doesn't mean no one can use the word though. If you are using the word to sell products or services for which the main trademark was never related to then you will have no issues. So long as people would not be confused into thinking you are affiliated with the business or products for which that term was originally trademarked, you should be just fine.

    Trademarks are there to protect brands. If you try to profit off of someone else's name and hard work, that is when trademark infringement becomes an issue. But trademarks are NOT designed to stop every other person from ever using that word(s) again.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7985449].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RobinInTexas
      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      Trademarks are there to protect brands. If you try to profit off of someone else's name and hard work, that is when trademark infringement becomes an issue. But trademarks are NOT designed to stop every other person from ever using that word(s) again.
      That is correct, but if you are doing something that might be construed as infringing, you better be making a ton of money if it belongs to a company a lot bigger than you. If you start selling office supplies and you use the name depot in your marketing, you are not likely to be able to afford the lawyers to defend the lawsuits.
      Signature

      Robin



      ...Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just set there.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7985508].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      But trademarks are NOT designed to stop every other person from ever using that word(s) again.
      Will,
      But is Rolodex a "word"? Was it a "word" before they trademarked it? I agree that words should never be "owned" by any person or entity, but when one creates a "word" or brand, wouldn't that constitute a copyrightable work - first protected under copyright laws for their life and then could be trademarked / registered accordingly?

      Here's an article on brand names going generic:
      http://inventors.about.com/b/2006/01...trademarks.htm
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7986220].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author davezan
        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

        I'm not sure who trademarked the term rolodex or for what industry it was trademarked for. It doesn't mean no one can use the word though. If you are using the word to sell products or services for which the main trademark was never related to then you will have no issues. So long as people would not be confused into thinking you are affiliated with the business or products for which that term was originally trademarked, you should be just fine.
        Just an add-on to that, Will. The more unique and/or famous the trademark, the
        more likely anything bearing that mark might be confused with its source even if
        it's used for something else.

        Google and Microsoft are two examples of that with the number of administrative
        and legal disputes they filed. However, it's partly because they can afford to.

        Re: Nissan.com: what many people don't realize is that the Japanese auto maker
        has been using the name as a trademark years before Mr. Nissan even set foot in
        U.S. soil. The automaker tried to buy the domain name, Mr. Nissan refused, he put
        car ads on his domain name's then website, and it went from there.

        While Mr. Nissan can still keep his domain name, he can't use it about cars. Ever.

        Originally Posted by professorrosado View Post

        But is Rolodex a "word"? Was it a "word" before they trademarked it? I agree that words should never be "owned" by any person or entity, but when one creates a "word" or brand, wouldn't that constitute a copyrightable work - first protected under copyright laws for their life and then could be trademarked / registered accordingly?
        Unlike copyright works, creation of a word doesn't automatically create any kind
        of exclusive material right. However, the word/s can become a trademark if it is
        used to identify the source of its good or service in commerce.
        Signature

        David

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7986280].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
          Originally Posted by davezan View Post

          Unlike copyright works, creation of a word doesn't automatically create any kind of exclusive material right. However, the word/s can become a trademark if it is used to identify the source of its good or service in commerce.
          Just as a FYI for the thread, this article quotes [the << I edit now to "a" thanks to avezan's following reply ] Supreme Court's ruling on a relevant case: Can You Copyright A Single Word? | Techdirt

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7986315].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author davezan
            Originally Posted by professorrosado View Post

            Just as a FYI for the thread, this article quotes the Supreme Court's ruling on a relevant case: Can You Copyright A Single Word? | Techdirt
            He he, that's the Supreme Court...in Poland. Skimming the blog entry it linked to,
            it seemed the Polish SC didn't agree with the complaining party's case anyway.
            Signature

            David

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7986396].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
              Originally Posted by davezan View Post

              He he, that's the Supreme Court...in Poland. Skimming the blog entry it linked to,
              it seemed the Polish SC didn't agree with the complaining party's case anyway.
              This is an International forum - you presume U.S. only matters in such debates.
              Additionally, the U.S. Supreme court has ruled previously in other cases citing International or foreign precedence.

              On a final note, Google fought a recent battle in a foreign court on the use or reference to its brand.

              This issue is one that affects the global marketer in all parts of the world and not just in the U.S. courts.

              The U.S. Copyright law expressly says this:

              Subject Matter of Copyright

              Under section 102 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U. S. Code), copyright
              protection extends only to "original works of authorship." The statute states
              clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be
              protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum amount
              of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic
              expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these
              requirements.

              Trademark and Unfair Competition Laws
              Some brand names, trade names, slogans, and phrases may
              be entitled to protection under laws relating to unfair
              competition
              , or they may be entitled to protection and
              registration under the provisions of state or federal trademark
              laws
              . The federal trademark statute covers trademarks and
              service marks--words, phrases, symbols, or designs that
              distinguish the goods or services of one party from those of
              another. The Copyright Office has no role in these matters.
              For information about trademarks, contact
              Commissioner for Trademarks
              U. S. Patent and Trademark Office
              P. O. Box 1451
              Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
              (800) 786-9199
              TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
              www.uspto.gov

              Source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf


              On Trademarks:
              Steps in Acquiring Federal Trademark

              There are many benefits to federal trademark registration. The United States Patent and Trademark Office lists these perks as the following:
              • Public notice of your claim of ownership;
              • The mark is legally yours to use and you are authorized to use it nationwide;
              • You may go to court and sue to protect your mark if someone is infringing upon it;
              • You may use the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain registration in other countries;
              • The ability to record the registration with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to prevent importation of goods that may infringe on your mark (think of the infamous Levi's jeans knockoffs common;
              • The right to use the federal registration symbol ® and,
              • Listing in the United States Patent and Trademark Office's online databases.
              Before you can register your mark, though, you must spend some time establishing ownership of it. This is actually a very simple process. In fact, some of these steps will be accomplished naturally as you go about your business.
              1. Start using the slogan, name or logo for business purposes. For instance, if you want to name a juice drink as "Thirst" then use the name in conducting business. Then file for trademark.
              2. File an intent to use to lock in the filing date of your application. An intent to use application reserves the name for a certain period.
              3. The name or mark can be reserved for six months and is renewable every six months thereafter up to a maximum period of 24 months.
              4. Pay the intent to use application costs. The fee is often equivalent to a regular trademark application.
              source: Can You Trademark a Word? Yes! Here's How

              Now - from: Unfair Competition legal definition of Unfair Competition. Unfair Competition synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
              Any fraudulent, deceptive, or dishonest trade practice that is prohibited by statute, regulation, or the Common Law.
              The law of unfair competition serves five purposes. First, the law seeks to protect the economic, intellectual, and creative investments made by businesses in distinguishing themselves and their products. Second, the law seeks to preserve the good will that businesses have established with consumers. Third, the law seeks to deter businesses from appropriating the good will of their competitors. Fourth, the law seeks to promote clarity and stability by encouraging consumers to rely on a merchant's good will and reputation when evaluating the quality of rival products. Fifth, the law seeks to increase competition by providing businesses with incentives to offer better goods and services than others in the same field.


              Although the law of unfair competition helps protect consumers from injuries caused by deceptive trade practices, the remedies provided to redress such injuries are available only to business entities and proprietors. Consumers who are injured by deceptive trade practices must avail themselves of the remedies provided by state and federal Consumer Protection laws. In general, businesses and proprietors injured by unfair competition have two remedies: injunctive relief (a court order restraining a competitor from engaging in a particular fraudulent or deceptive practice) and money damages (compensation for any losses suffered by an injured business).

              ---end of quoted reference----

              So we then have only one recourse - trade or service mark for our word / brand name. We also have the right to protect our brand name from being used to fool or deceive the consumer (confusing them into thinking a product or service is from the brand name owner).

              So based on this, Google won against the term "ungooglable" based on the first purpose of Trademark Law - "the law seeks to protect the economic, intellectual, and creative investments made by businesses in distinguishing themselves and their products". And so too, it is the only basis for Rolodex to bring suit - however, they must show that your usage actually violates their "distinguishing" element of the word or brand.

              With Google, "unGooglable" represents a direct attack on their economic, intellectual and creative investment.
              Rolodex, PayPal and any other trade or service mark, must then show similar injury.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7987268].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author davezan
                Professorrosado,

                The point is copyrights don't apply to words whereas trademarks can. All of that
                text you referenced here already indicate such.

                While it seems I'm "presuming" U.S. laws, they are essentially derived from British
                common law. It also happens that intellectual property laws in many countries in
                Europe and Asia also based theirs on British or U.S. laws on such.

                (Don't take my word for it, though. I can maybe refer you to some lawyers that I
                know who focus on this stuff.)

                Going back to the topic, alas TheRealDudeman and Will are essentially right that a
                lot of people don't understand copyrights, trademarks, or laws in general. Then
                again, nobody's born knowing these things, anyway.
                Signature

                David

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7987472].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
                  Originally Posted by davezan View Post

                  Professorrosado,
                  The point is copyrights don't apply to words whereas trademarks can. All of that
                  text you referenced here already indicate such.
                  I know, that's why I made a point to fetch out the finer details EXACTLY because most people do not really understand copyright and trademark law.

                  If we all act the smart part and assume common sense, then there's is no reason to pat ourselves on the back while the masses remain ignorant.

                  Many use the forum to validate or affirm their "in-the-know" opinion of themselves - some and indeed many posts here on the forums are simply "Devil's advocates". The purpose is to stir thought and debate - not to pretend knowledge or ignorance for that matter.

                  This is more than just a light subject for me because I do "create" words. I am always inventing new concepts and terms to encompass their structure and salience. And so too, many here on the WF do so and make domain names and brands - this must be addressed fully and understood fully.

                  It's not just an issue of who is right - it is an issue of educating warriors about the issues, in this case, the OP and how it may affect Warriors according to the degree of relevance to their business.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7987586].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    But is Rolodex a "word"?
                    They created the word - it's not like they took a commonly used word and tried to exert ownership of it. The word was coined to fit the product they were selling - a circular (rolo) file (index) product.

                    People love to argue trademark and rights - but when it comes right down to it, the average marketer does not have the money to fight a court battle about it.

                    If you can't afford to defend yourself against charges of infringement - save the time and money and don't use a trademarked product name.
                    Signature
                    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                    ***
                    Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7987943].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author WillR
                      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                      They created the word - it's not like they took a commonly used word and tried to exert ownership of it. The word was coined to fit the product they were selling - a circular (rolo) file (index) product.

                      People love to argue trademark and rights - but when it comes right down to it, the average marketer does not have the money to fight a court battle about it.

                      If you can't afford to defend yourself against charges of infringement - save the time and money and don't use a trademarked product name.
                      I must admit I didn't read too much about the word rolodex. But you are right. If someone has created the word and trademarked it then you will need to be very careful when using it.

                      These cases are tough ones though when a word is created to describe something that is then used in everyday language. Much like people will refer to a tissue as a kleenex.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7989467].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Hill
                      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                      They created the word - it's not like they took a commonly used word and tried to exert ownership of it. The word was coined to fit the product they were selling - a circular (rolo) file (index) product.

                      People love to argue trademark and rights - but when it comes right down to it, the average marketer does not have the money to fight a court battle about it.

                      If you can't afford to defend yourself against charges of infringement - save the time and money and don't use a trademarked product name.
                      That's right... used to sell a circular (rolo) file (index) product. So does that mean if you create an ebook as a source guide and call it Internet Marketers Rolodex would that being going against a circular (rolo) file? It may be considered an index of sorts but not a circular rolo file to be sure.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7990051].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        With many trademarks - we can come up with ideas for "should be OK to use it this way". Maybe - maybe not.

                        No one ever heard the word Roladex until that company started selling it's products. It's a specific word referring to a certain product line. To me, that's a strong argument.

                        Internet Marketers Rolodex
                        I wouldn't use it - there are many other words that would fill in...
                        file, round file, master index, circular index, index system.

                        People get attached to their ideas sometimes and end up justifying using a trademark on an emotional level. My own practice is not to use a term that could cause a problem. Problems take time (and sometimes money) to solve.

                        But that's just me - others like to live on the edge

                        kay

                        Edit: Just looked it up. Roladex is owned by Rubbermaid which is US based global company with many trademarks. I expect they protect trademarks with their own fleet of lawyers. For that reason alone - I wouldn't touch this one.
                        Signature
                        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                        ***
                        Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7990154].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mpbiz
    What trademark category is "rolodex" registered for?

    As long as your product, service, niche, etc. aren't in those categories you are 100% fine. I could go start a beverage company called rolodex right now and I wouldn't be infringing on anything.
    Signature
    IMBundle.com > Offers massive savings, usually more than 75% off, on bundles of internet marketing stuff. Tools, landing pages, tracking software, courses, you name it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7985523].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bill Hugall
    The last time I checked. Mr.Brown was never taken to court for using the word Google in "Google Sniper"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7989509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marcel Pamphile
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9404043].message }}

Trending Topics