Is it possible to Tradmark A Phrase?

[mrrobertstv]

Donald Trump Is trying to Trademark the phrase "Your Fired" , which would mean every time that phrase us uttered throughout the industry it would in fact be a Trademark infringement. So my question I am posing to the users of WebProWorld is this, we have a Trademark for the phrase “we ate there” although it is spelled We8there, however when uttered there is no clear distinction between “We ate there” and We8there. So does this mean every time the phrase “we ate there” is mentioned (lets say on television) could this be Trademark infringement or is there a minor difference?

[Maximilian]

So does this mean every time the phrase “we ate there” is mentioned (lets say on television) could this be Trademark infringement or is there a minor difference?

Greetings - mrrobertstv!

Trademark infringement law is based upon the owner of the trademark in question, showing forth "due diligence" in the protection of the trademark.

Prior to gaining trademark on a drawn logo, written or verbal text, one must show "general providence". Meaning, proof that the work is of unique origin within its genre or is publicly known to have been initially generated by the source applying for the trademark.

I hope this helps.

Cheers!
Max

[askwinner]

I think that, with a good team of lawyers, nowadays you can enforce everything you want. And then, after paying the lawyers' high bills, you are left alone to face a backslash from customers and other people who are angry at this IP craziness...

The Donald should spend more time taking care of the profitability of his casinos, instead of trademarking English words. Maybe he wants to claim the rights of "You are fired" when his BOD is going to tell that to him :-)

Anyway, I hope your question is just for curiosity :-)

fz
http://www.associatedplayers.com

[Andilinks]

Hi mrrobertstv

If it were possible to claim an infringement on a commonly spoken phrase everytime it is used in a commercial sense language would be illegal in commerce and civilization would grind to a halt.

Infringement occurs only when you can show damages. So only if a particular use of your trademarked phrase actually costs you money or equivalent (and you can prove it) do you have a case.

Andi

[Ender]

Bear in mind that we're web designers here, and not lawyers....you'll want to call this sort of question in.

I'd be inclined to say that "we ate there" verbally is not trademarkable....kinda in the public domain. When Donald Trump tried to trademark "You're fired", I joked that Mr. Spacely from "The Jetsons" had prior art on the quote, so Trump wouldn't get it.

Also, consider the damage that could be done to your mark by trademarking such a generic phrase. Just ask Xerox and Google how hard it is to separate their marks from the now-common public domain usages thereof. I'd say concentrate on generating a marketing-friendly, trademarkable logo, and a unique (and therefore uniquely trademarkable) phrase for it (think like Coca-Cola here: "Just for the taste of it!" is trademarked, and rightfully so, because nobody had ever used that phrase before.)

Short version is, if they trademarked everything that could be said verbally, the English™ language™ would™ look™ like™ this™.

[DrTandem1]

I think you mean, "You're fired!" In any event, he may be able to do so. The trick is that it must be used in interstate commerce. In other words, the phrase must be used to sell goods between states (in the U.S.).

Here are a couple of sites that explain this. One is a legal explanation and one is a practical application:

http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article5473.html

http://www.letsrumble.com/

Now, simply uttering those words, such as "You're fired" is not automatically an infringement. It is an infringement, if the use is likely to cause confusion with the trademarked slogan. So, you can tell your employee, "You're fired!" and not be infringing on the trademark. However, you can not start a TV show and use the same slogan with the same premise. You would have to change it significantly, such as "You're canned!"

I hope that clears up any confusion.

[geoffreygag]

DrTandem is correct.

The TM is clearly violated once you try to directly or indirectly gain commercially.

[Nomad]

em strictly speaking you can't copy right a number any way so your own trade mark is invalid due to the use of the number 8. It's to 'Generic' of a term.

As to Mr.Trump being able to copy right or trademark such a generically used term as 'You're Fired', i think that will meet the same fate.
In essence the words are used generally on a daily basis and as such if they were tm'd then anyone using them in the terms of 'Dismissal' (Let's face it that is exactly what Mr.Trump is doing, dismissing someone [from The Apprentice I believe - I've been watching it lately- very good]).
in essence then, if the term was to be used in that way a 'Breach of Copy-Right' would occur.

Sorry the phrase is to widely used in every day life for it to become a trade mark, it's allready to diseminated and generic, both are parts of the fundemental basis of Trademark and Copy-Right, in that 'You're Fired' cannot be considered unique and original.
So no I'm sorry to disappoint you but it can't be and indeed your own is questionable by the use of the number 8 as I said.

Here, you are using a 'Play on Words' and an astronomical number of generic terms, some quite similar to your own, exist coupled with words like, I, There, Here, We, Who, You, etc and with such a diverse mixture as to not be original.

It's not the fact that it is a number as such but as how you use that number or word, what meaning a term gives that gives it it's originality and uniqueness and there by Copy Rightable.

Now I use number's and a word in my business name. They are generic a word and number's bought together (See the ruling on the i386 case on this) so how can I claim them as trademark.

I use 2412electrics. How it is made up is the important bit. Mine is unique in it's own term because unless I explain how it came about it you would be hard pressed to guess what it means. This then gives it 1. Orignality and 2. Uniqueness.
This means I have created a new term. Thereby i can claim originality.
The term actually came from another part of my business, which is the prmotion of Alternative Energy.

These systems mostly run on 24volt and 12volt systems generating Electricity...Think you can figure the rest your self from there but essentially it means I Design, Supply and install Alternative Energy Electrical Systems, much easier just to say 2412electrics, which in actual fact is a printers mistake because I originally called it 2412vElectrics, which made it more obvious.

To keep to the original point , that of the phrase 'You're Fired' being a trademarkable phrase then no it can't be because it simply does not stand up to the two basic rules Originality and Unique in it's own right. it has to be both, not one or the other.

[Web Artist]

Speech is free
language is the basis of all communication.

Trademarking any words, slogans, and sayings, is kind of funny to me. I understand it has its necessity in business. People (companies) send paper to some more people and they say you own these words for business purposes.

I guess the first ammendment doesnt matter when there is money involved.

I own these words dont use them or I'll sue you!!! LOL

[globalhostinggroup]

I seriously doubt Donald trump will win be able to trademark that term.
He did not invent the phrase and there is written reference to the phrase predating his birth.
That’s like saying I’m going to trademark the phrase good morning.
Trump is rich and just pushing publicity.

In direct reference to your question Mattel tried to sue a band called Aqua for copy right infringement on their song Barbie but the court dismissed this case saying that the word has too many different meanings Barbie in Australia common reference to a barbeque

[mrrobertstv]

em strictly speaking you can't copy right a number any way so your own trade mark is invalid due to the use of the number 8. It's to 'Generic' of a term.

As to Mr.Trump being able to copy right or trademark such a generically used term as 'You're Fired', i think that will meet the same fate.
In essence the words are used generally on a daily basis and as such if they were tm'd then anyone using them in the terms of 'Dismissal' (Let's face it that is exactly what Mr.Trump is doing, dismissing someone [from The Apprentice I believe - I've been watching it lately- very good]).
in essence then, if the term was to be used in that way a 'Breach of Copy-Right' would occur.

Sorry the phrase is to widely used in every day life for it to become a trade mark, it's allready to diseminated and generic, both are parts of the fundemental basis of Trademark and Copy-Right, in that 'You're Fired' cannot be considered unique and original.
So no I'm sorry to disappoint you but it can't be and indeed your own is questionable by the use of the number 8 as I said.

Here, you are using a 'Play on Words' and an astronomical number of generic terms, some quite similar to your own, exist coupled with words like, I, There, Here, We, Who, You, etc and with such a diverse mixture as to not be original.

It's not the fact that it is a number as such but as how you use that number or word, what meaning a term gives that gives it it's originality and uniqueness and there by Copy Rightable.

Now I use number's and a word in my business name. They are generic a word and number's bought together (See the ruling on the i386 case on this) so how can I claim them as trademark.

I use 2412electrics. How it is made up is the important bit. Mine is unique in it's own term because unless I explain how it came about it you would be hard pressed to guess what it means. This then gives it 1. Orignality and 2. Uniqueness.
This means I have created a new term. Thereby i can claim originality.
The term actually came from another part of my business, which is the prmotion of Alternative Energy.

These systems mostly run on 24volt and 12volt systems generating Electricity...Think you can figure the rest your self from there but essentially it means I Design, Supply and install Alternative Energy Electrical Systems, much easier just to say 2412electrics, which in actual fact is a printers mistake because I originally called it 2412vElectrics, which made it more obvious.

To keep to the original point , that of the phrase 'You're Fired' being a trademarkable phrase then no it can't be because it simply does not stand up to the two basic rules Originality and Unique in it's own right. it has to be both, not one or the other.

Sooo maybe I should let the Feds know they issued me an invalid trademark!

[globalhostinggroup]

If you registered “We8there” this has no infringement to someone saying “We ate there” this slogan would only be enforceable in print and dependant on your trade marking it may only be protected for your country.

[staceman]

Repeat NOT LAWYERS...just opinionated disclaimer

Also, keep in mind, trademarks are very very specific for products and use. If you have a company, MyJeans&HandBags, you would have to register a TM for use of that name under Handbags, that logo under Handbags, the use of the name under jeans, the use of the logo under jeans, etc...it can get very expensive to be all encompassing.

With regards to Trump, his application was contested by a pottery maker who had already trademarked the phrase "You're Fired" for use in their area with respect to pottery. But, their TM ends there.

[RikR]

Nextel trademarked "Push to Talk" for the walkie talkie button on their phones. This phrase has been used genericly since two way radio was invented.

[Andilinks]

Sooo maybe I should let the Feds know they issued me an invalid trademark!

They don't care, only you care. And you won't know if it truly is invalid until it is tested in court. And the Feds still won't care.

Andi

[esiegel]

To trademark a phrase you have to prove that it is unique and not in common use.

'You're fired' won't pass the test....
In the case of my company...'Managing The Elements of Success' did. It is trademarked.

also... remember that Trump tried to trademark the word TRUMP. The is a Travel agent on Long Island named TRUMP TRAVEL that I believe is older than the Donald. He tried to get the to stop using the name....AND FAILED.

He'll try anything.

[RikR]

How about the Nextel case? "Push to Talk" had been in common use for at least 50 years in exactly the application they use it.

[Andilinks]

Well, if you use any phrase in front of the words "for dummies" you'll run afoul of Wiley publishing. How dumb is that?

Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=64412

[omahtld]

Have a look at this link....
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/18/chinese_company_clai.html

And then tell me the current law on trademarks, never mind patents is working....

Funny thing is, Patent law was introduced to protect the little guy developing / inventing.

[mike]

McDonalds got a mark for "I'm lovin' it (http://www.media.mcdonalds.com/secured/news/pressreleases/2003/Press_Release06112003.html)".


Nothing surprises me with TMs. I expect Trump will have no problem getting 'You're fired' done.

[jawn_tech]

When applying for a trademark, you have the option of also listing a few variations of the words or phrase. "Little League" is a trademark, believe it or not, by its respective national organization. For many children however, the phrase is used generically for any type of league of children's sports. They have the trademarks for LL, Little league baseball, etc...

Whether or not Donald Trump wins his TM, doesn't mean someone can't use the phrase on television. It means someone else can't use it as a tv show title, or other similar revenue-bearing products or services. But mentioning the phrase is always fair game.

However take the phrase "nothing but net". McDonald's used this phrase in a series of commercials, so they thought it gave them 'ownership'. A young girl invented a basketball hoop with a voice that was activated if a ball went in 'nothing but net'. That was also the name of her invented product. When she went to get a TM for the name, McDonalds tried suing her, even though they did not have a TM. I don't recall if they won or not, but if memory serves me, they didn't...

Amazing. McDonald's suing a little girl.

[esiegel]

Amazing. McDonald's suing a little girl.

Why is that amazing...big companies using the courts to push the little guy around is nothing new.

My favorite case was when the guy tried to use his Pepsi Points to by the Fighter Jet that was shown in the commercial. He followed the rules of the offer...Pepsi said it was just a joke and sued him because he went public with it....AND WON!

[smalltown]

I got a C&D email today; apparently a guy in Las Vegas has trademarked a one-word "phrase" in heavy general use within a certain industry. I was sure someone would have thought about it, but I didn't think it was 'trademark-able.' Still, he got the paper for it ...

I'd like to get some more seasoned opinions than mine on this; I haven't run into this problem before, but I'm a little nervous to put the
phrase online. Someone willing to accept a PM or email on the word in question and give me their thoughts?

[jawn_tech]

I'm curious what it is, you can PM me if you want.

I tend to think certain TM's wouldn't hold up if they are one-word general terms. Even Trump is having a hard time with a 2-word general phrase. Things can always be contested.

[Andilinks]

I will also reply to a PM...