Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They should have complied
Anything less than a 95% filtration or greater mask is slightly less than pointless.
I don’t think you understand what “pointless” means.
That paper mask you buy at the store or are handed at some penny pinching medical facility has 10-35% filtration ability.
[citation needed]
And C19 is smaller than the pores.
Irrelevant. They travel via tiny water droplets in your breath, and those are too large to fit through the pores.
Use an N/KN/K/LN/EN 95 mask. Or die.
Have you never heard of the phrase, “It’s better than nothing”? We simply don’t have enough such masks available for every single human being every single day.
That’s an interesting idea, but it’s not terribly realistic, and we would need to work towards it step-by-step. Which is exactly what I was proposing. The only difference is where the final destination is. The “modifying privacy” thing would need to happen first before we could eliminate privacy the way you intend.
That said, since we’re discussing Japan, and you mentioned the whole “not getting away with it” sort of thing, are you aware that Japan currently has a major problem with sexual harassment and such in public and nobody doing anything about it?
“No, it is not. That debate isn’t restricted to gay marriage. It’s also about stuff like adultery, divorce, gay adoption, sex outside of marriage, and a whole bunch of other things.”
Then again, none of that would be taking place in married couples when lay people aren’t getting married anymore. So it totally destroys their argument.
How would removing legal recognition of marriage prevent laypeople from getting married? No, seriously, how?
Considering they are the largest secular rights group in the country and one of the largest in the world, they hold weight in discussion about religion.
Sure. But that’s not what this is about, really. It’s about marriage and language. As I believe I’ve made crystal clear, I believe those things are not defined by religion, so the FFRF holds no more weight on such matters than anyone else. Also, what did you say their position was? That they debate about it? So what? That they hold debates on the issue means nothing.
“I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that I don’t see that as having any actual benefits at all.”
The primary benefit is one more step away from archaic cults having legal standing. It’s one more thing they can use in debate. Like it or not, most Republicans, and some Democrats, use the religious aspect of marriage in debate.
Strip it away and they can’t debate marriage if the law in from of them doesn’t have the term.
Most Republicans and some Democrats use the religious aspect of just about every term in debate. Marriage is in no way special in this regard. I still see no benefit in pretending they’re right when they are absolutely wrong.
Wise practice is to remove as much religious claim as possible from law.
Well, there is none, so problem solved. Sure, they may say they have a religious claim, but that doesn’t mean they’re right, and I see no reason to humor them by pretending they are.
Look, here’s the thing. I don’t see a meaningful problem to be solved here, and to the extent there is a problem at all, your idea won’t actually meaningfully solve the problem any better than what we already have. You can keep saying the same thing over and over again, but that won’t change anything.
Do you really think this debate is at an end?
That republicans are not capable with a super majority across all three levels of government, of undoing this?
I think they would do so regardless of whether you call it “marriage”, “civil union”, or “domestic partnership”. Also, even among Republicans, there isn’t any real push to overturn gay marriage they way they want to overturn Roe v Wade.
The debate will largely continue in all likelihood, but it’s not particularly meaningful right now.
A single state just stripped away the right to remove unwanted parasitic tumours from women’s wombs.
Though the law will eventually, in all realistic likelihood, be struck down eventually, the damage until then is untold horror.
And this is a problem, but it’s also a separate discussion.
Do you really believe “marriage” isn’t in their minds as well?!!?
Based on the polling, it isn’t, really, at least not to the same extent. And to the extent that it is, your proposal won’t change that.
The fact is that states and Republicans have been fighting Roe v Wade pretty much from the start, but they aren’t really fighting like that against gay marriage. It is highly unlikely to happen with gay marriage. The ones who are fighting it don’t really care what you call it; most want homosexuality gone, period. The ones who support civil unions and are opposed to gay marriage will not accept having civil unions unless civil unions exclude straight couples having to have civil unions. You’re trying to reason with people who can’t be reasoned with.
On top of that, the way the court weaseled out of declaring the anti-abortion law unconstitutional couldn’t apply to gay marriage bans. The anti-abortion law only got past because it involved private action, and gay marriage is entirely about state recognition.
The term domestic partnership as been state level law since the late 1700s.
But not at the federal level.
The idea of a civil union first crept up in the mid 1800s but is today federally recognised.
Incorrect. The term “civil union” is not now and never has been federally recognized.
We’re not inserting anything new. Just removing something that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
I disagree that it shouldn’t be there in the first place, and you absolutely are inserting something new to replace what you’re removing.
I follow your idea on the term. And it’s historical use. But can you understand my reasoning based on the origin of the term?
No, I can’t because it demonstrates that very same origin also demonstrates that it existed in law from the start. I can follow your idea, but I can’t understand how your conclusion follows from that.
Would this country not be best off removing anything of religious significance from law when the alternate terminology is readily accepted in legislation and judicial practice?
Marriage has religious significance the same way that beards have religious significance to the Amish and childbirth has religious significance to a lot of groups. They did not invent it, nor do they have exclusive ownership to it. There is nothing about the term “marriage” that is inherently of religious significance.
Additionally, the alternate terminology is not readily accepted in legislation and judicial practice.
As such, I reject the premises of the question, which makes it inherently inapplicable to this discussion.
As I posted further down below:
Marriage-merge-meage-mrgee
matrim
מאר
उद्वाह
It’s historical source comes from a religious act. That early religion dictated law is coincidental in the term’s meaning and use.
Irrelevant. That the Modern English term stems from a religious act regarding what the law is or should be is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Also, you say it’s coincidental, but it’s not. For one thing, it utterly eviscerates your point that marriage wasn’t part of the law because this was absolutely about the law! That means that, from your earliest research, marriage was in both religion and the law. They were not separate at that time.
The actual uptick in general use comes following the Roman Empire turning Christian.
Prior to that they had a separate legally recognised joining rite. Which was the only recognition to the empire. Non-Roman religious beliefs like marriage were not recognised. An aid to a Prefect, a Tally, or a Censor would be called to record a separate joining beyond whatever Christians or Jews etc did.
A distinction without a difference. Or rather, the only difference was the rite, not the practice or really the terminology.
The interesting thing here is Roman, and Greek, societies were generally very accepting of pan-sexuality. That was lost when Rome accepted marriage and de-legalised the standard joining.
No, it’s when they accepted Christian marriage, not marriage, period.
“Uh, yes there is”
What? Where? “ During the time” is past. Today? Point out a single difference other than on is tainted by 3000 years of nonsense and one has a base in law.
Okay, well, currently no one recognizes civil unions at all, so the term legally has no power whatsoever and doesn’t even exist anymore. There has never been a point in history where “marriage” and “civil union” have ever been legally equivalent. I simply went back to the last time we had civil unions at all, and they were specifically intended to be distinct from marriage from the onset, and they had different results. So, from a purely legal standpoint, they have never both coexisted and been equivalent, and there has never been a time where “civil unions” existed without “marriage” coexisting.
“You’ve left open a massive loophole there: states can still issue marriage licenses, and there is no requirement that states must provide civil unions the same rights and benefits as marriages.”
“ All states shall be required to file a civil domestic partnership contract with the federal registers office if they continue to issue marriage licensing.”
Nope!
No loophole. i accounted for states like Utah etc. lol.
Yeah, that’s where the loophole is. See, that provision ensures that everyone who gets married will also be in a civil union, but (crucially) it does not require that everyone in a civil union must be able to get marriage licensing in states that continue to issue such licensing. The only thing that provision does is to ensure that all marriages recognized at the state level still get all the same federal benefits; it doesn’t do anything to ensure that everyone who gets those federal benefits also get all the state benefits that married couples do.
And keep in mind that the DNA of the unborn child is completely different from the mother's, which means it's NOT just another part of her body like you guys keep insisting.
Fun Fact:
Right now, your body contains an entire ecosystem of microorganisms—some good, some bad, some neutral—whose DNA (or RNA) are completely different from yours. In fact, they’re even less similar to yours than a mother’s is to her fetus’s or whatever.
Not only that, but those sperm cells or unfertilized egg cells in your body? They also have different DNA from yours! In fact, they don’t even have the same amount of DNA as you!
And those cancer cells… Why, they also have different DNA that causes them to multiply to the point it’s dangerous!
And I guess transplanted organs and blood transfusions aren’t part of the recipients’ bodies, either. I mean, they also have completely different DNA.
And don’t get me started on chimerism! Why, those people are born with more than one set of distinct DNA in different cells in their body!
This is one of the times you need to look at Apple more as a fashion brand.
Okay, then let’s look at Apple as a fashion brand.
The most likely explanation is that inferior repairs will reflect poorly on the Apple brand, especially as those repaired phones move through the ecosystem and are resold to someone who might not know they have been repaired by a un-approved shop.
So, by analogy, inferior repairs will reflect poorly on the fashion brand, especially as those repaired dresses move through the ecosystem and are resold to someone who might not know they have been repaired by an unapproved shop.
Okay… Now, does anyone know of a fashion company that tries to inhibit repairs on dresses (or whatever it is they’re selling)? Or where this is in any way a problem in the fashion industry?
No, it isn’t. You fail to recognise how CSAM such as bathroom peep cams are made.
Most cases involved a male dressed as a female.
I’ve been following this whole issue closely for a long time. I’ve heard of absolutely no instances of a male dressed as a female doing that outside of fiction. At all. Maybe there are some in some places, but most? Definitely not.
There’s a difference between someone who prefers the clothing and someone who simply plays dress up.
As a disguise? Yes. However, as it pertains to bathrooms, it is a non-issue.
Right now the separation is part of the problem. And inviting variations in that separation doesn’t help the more vulnerable.
We don’t need equal access, we need to do away with separation and move to single access.
I have no idea what you mean by “variations in that separation”. That said, this is sounding like a cultural thing rather than a rights thing.
I’m accepting that the privacy aspect is part of the divide in understanding my approach vs yours. But what’s so private?
We all piss and crap. Do it and leave.
The issue is that if I don’t want people to see my privates, they shouldn’t see my privates. If other people don’t care if others see their privates, fine, but I fail to see why the option to keep them private shouldn’t be available.
Where you approach it as “ nobody needs to know what is under her dress”
I say nobody should care. Including her.
First of all, this directly conflicts with your earlier issue regarding bathroom peep cameras. If she shouldn’t care if someone sees what’s under her dress, she should care if there’s a bathroom peep cam, either.
Second, I don’t want to force everyone to bare themselves if they don’t want to, nor do I believe they necessarily should want to. Different people are different. I don’t want to force them to abandon those differences.
Western society is too focused on too much privacy and it has its downsides.
I agree, but not for the same reasons. I think Western society is too focused on what happens in private.
A good part of this problem, ignored in debate, is the bullshite privacy of sexuality.
This is also roped into the whole top-freedom movement, the right to nudity… etc.
I’m not against those things. I just believe people should be able to decide for themselves what about themselves they should keep private.
If you don’t want to see something don’t look!
And if you do want to see, so what!
I agree with the first, but as for the second… I’m more along the lines of, “If you don’t want to show something don’t show it!” That said, if someone does show it, I agree that it shouldn’t matter if others want to look.
I guess you could say the difference is between someone looking at someone else who walks around naked and someone who flips up skirts to look, or between looking at an exhibitionist showing off and peeping on a person in their bedroom.
You’re not going to get a casual groping in a unisex environment.
I’d like to see evidence of that, especially given the fact that casual groping occurs outside of restrooms and locker rooms, like on subways or at work, but for the record, I’m not opposed to having unisex restrooms and locker rooms. I just think that they should be made to allow for people to do whatever it is they’re doing in private if they wish to.
You remove the crime of opportunity.
By increasing the opportunities for the crime, you reduce the crimes done in opportunity? I really don’t think you’ve thought this through. At all.
Stop with the separate but equal.
I agree. I just don’t think that works in your favor. As I said, I’m fine with unisex rooms, but I have a very different idea of how they work.
And stop with the accommodations!
As a disabled person, I kinda need some accommodations, so I’m gonna take a hard pass on that.
We should be fighting for pure blind equality. Not stand or sit. Nit race. Not creed. Not age. Etc.
Sounds nice. Absurdly idealistic with no grounds in reality, but nice.
Nothing here is anti-trans. I don’t care. It’s still artificial grouping.
Stop with the grouping.
If I want to put on a mini skirt and a tube top and dance in the rain it’s my own damn choice. And if you don’t like it sod off!
I approach everything with that mentality.
Uh, no. See, here’s the thing. Remember when you said, “There’s a difference between someone who prefers the clothing and someone who simply plays dress up”? Yeah, there’s also a difference between being transgender and being transvestite. They are completely separate and unrelated things.
I agree that if you “want to put on a mini skirt and a tube top and dance in the rain,” that is your choice and none of my business. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with being transgender. Even if no piece of clothing was gender-specific, transgender people would still exist even though crossdressing would not.
As for the grouping, the distinction is always there. It’s just that it should only have a difference in specific contexts. I’m not against removing bathrooms or locker rooms from the contexts in which sex or gender are distinctions with a difference, but they are still groups. And there’s nothing artificial about it.
Standing urinals exist all over the world for women, though especially in Asia.
My experience with Asia is limited to Japan, and as far as I can tell, they still have separate public restrooms and baths for men and women (though there are some mixed baths that allow both men and women), and the women’s restrooms generally don’t have standing urinals as far as I can tell. I’m not against having women have standing urinals, but I’m unaware of that being common-practice anywhere.
Also, “X is common in culture/region Y” doesn’t necessarily mean we should change our culture to conform to that. It’s a good argument against claims that X can’t work at all or that X doesn’t exist, but that’s it.
There’s no need for separation. Just do it and leave.
And stop being so body protective.
I agree with the “just do it and leave” and, to an extent, “no need for separation,” but the body protective? I believe that people should have the right to be protective of their own bodies.
First, my point in bringing up the polygamy thing in the Bible was to point out that religions don’t agree on the matter, and religions have changed the definition of marriage over time, so the argument by religious homophobes has no water and doesn’t merit any concessions like you propose.
“since they still complained about civil unions,” I doubt that that’d shut them up.
Probably not. But it cuts their argument off at the knee caps.
Their argument never had a leg to stand on to begin with, so there are no kneecaps to cut them off at.
Look, if it doesn’t solve the problem, what’s the point?
Muhammad had 12 overlapping.
And most practices max at 25.
I wasn’t sure about the exact number, but it doesn’t change my main point (not that it was that big of a deal, anyways).
What’s solved is the debate about the “sanctity of marriage”.
No, it is not. That debate isn’t restricted to gay marriage. It’s also about stuff like adultery, divorce, gay adoption, sex outside of marriage, and a whole bunch of other things. You’ve only scratched the surface there.
Also, that ship sailed a looooooong time ago. The “sanctity of marriage” thing is and always has been illusory, at least how religious fundamentalists define it.
Even the FFRF has had extensive debates on the term. Some are on their YouTube channel.
To be frank, I really don’t give a damn.
Debating the term, they actually have a minor claim to it. They have no claim to the practice, so just turn them into the crybabies they are. Take away their sole claim to law.
No, they don’t have a minor claim to the term, or at least not a valid claim to its use outside of their specific church. Like I said, throughout history, many languages have had terms for the practice with no connection to religion; none of those languages had a separate term for the same practice but restricted to religion.
They also have no claim to law for us to take away. That they believe they do is immaterial. (But if you think that that is the only claim they believe they have to law, you’re living in a fantasy world.)
You’re proposing granting something they never had to begin with in order to try to solve a meritless debate that doesn’t actually matter, and it likely won’t solve that debate anyways. I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that I don’t see that as having any actual benefits at all.
Yes/no question for you.
Are you against removing the term from legal recognition when the other identical processes (civil unions, domestic partnerships) have the same legal recognition?
After that… why… explain your ye or nay.
I’m opposed to the idea that marriage is exclusively a religious practice, so inserting a new term that is identical seems pointless to me. If the term marriage didn’t exist at all, I’d be fine with that. However, since that is not the case, I’m opposed. I think the whole thing is a waste of time.
Your still missing the point! The religious resistance to the word is the problem. So strip them of their right to the practice; rather than force into their word.
I’m afraid you’re the one missing the point: It was never their word to begin with. You’re asking us to give them something they are not entitled to. As someone who loves to study language and a proponent of religious freedom, free speech, and equality, I cannot accept that.
Too much of this fight is use of a word!
Which is common, but it doesn’t really matter. We have a word, and some religious people think they own it and want to restrict its use. They are wrong to do so. They think tradition is on their side. They are wrong.
There is no difference between a civil union:domestic partnership and marriage in this country.
Uh, yes there is. During the time when some states recognized civil unions but not gay marriage, the federal government did not recognize civil unions at all, so any benefits in federal law that apply to married couples did not apply to civil unions. There was a similar problem in hospitals when it came to things like power of attorney.
Now, to the extent there is no difference between the two, there is no problem, and thus there is no point in solving the nonexistent problem.
That people, place an artificial superiority to the term, is the problem.
So start there. The answer isn’t to change the language to enforce that artificial superiority, because that’s what you’re doing here.
Congress need pass a law that says: In order to conform with the Constitutional requirements of the separation of religion from State recognition:
Upon passage as of ##/##/#### the term “marriage” shal no longer be recognised at the federal mall level. All rights of the civil domestic partnership currently afforded to the term are fully and permanently recessed. All states shall be required to file a civil domestic partnership contract with the federal registers office if they continue to issue marriage licensing.
You’ve left open a massive loophole there: states can still issue marriage licenses, and there is no requirement that states must provide civil unions the same rights and benefits as marriages. In order for your plan to not create a problem with gay rights, this has to apply equally at all levels of government.
You’re creating more problems than you’re attempting to solve, and I’m not even convinced that this would even solve the problem you’re trying to solve or that the problem is actually a problem!
Yeah, I got no idea, but then I’m not exactly the best with ciphers, at least at figuring out which cipher is being used and what key.
…which may be the point of the whole thing. It’s be nice if there was a hint, but yeah, I have no idea where to begin.
I think g = s given the number of times “'g” appears at the end of words, V = I since it appears capitalized on its own or in contractions, and I think i = v and r = e since you’ve got the contraction “V'ir” and I think the only contraction that would fit that pattern would be “I've”. From there, I’m guessing it’s symmetric (a = b iff b = a) rather than translational (xth letter maps to ((x-n) % 26 + 1)th letter of the alphabet (since i maps to v and vice versa, and then g and i have one letter in between them but map to letters (s and v, respectively) with two letters in between). If so, then s = g and e = r.
That’s all I’ve got so far, though. I’m just not seeing any pattern in the mapping aside from a single instance of symmetry that may extend to the rest of the mapping.
Right… So, all those black people who have complied with orders, reach for the glove compartment when asked to retrieve their license and registration when asked, and are then killed because the cop thought that they were reaching for a gun are the problem, not the cops who give orders and then shoot when the person attempts to comply.
Also, why should black people in particular take training in how to behave during traffic stops? As far as behaving goes, I’ve seen just as much bad behavior during traffic stops from white people as I have black people.
Stop catering to the victim nonsense.
Says the guy who whines about cops and/or white people being victims all the time.
Uh, it's not racist to realize reality: blacks are much more violent than other races.
I don’t think you know what “racism” means, because that statement right there is racist in itself, and it only gets worse in context.
AI and programming data quickly realize this. Idiots call that racist. Obviously it's just the truth. Machines don't lie. They ain't racist.
Here’s the thing: a machine can only work with the data you put into it. If the cops are plugging in data based on their racist views and unequal enforcement, the computer can’t just magically remove the racism from the data. Garbage in, garbage out.
Those that deny the reality of black violence, like you, are the true racists.
No one is saying black violence doesn’t happen. Only an idiot would say that. Saying that blacks are more likely to be violent after controlling for other factors like economic status is the problem here.
You are anti-white racists, and I'm betting you are white, […]
Ummmm… Do you not realize that that assumption about their skin color is also racist? Also, it’s pretty typical for bigots to say, “I’m not a bigot! You’re a bigot!” What are you, 12?
It's a mental illness in many white people.
And now you show you don’t know what mental illness is on top of not understanding what racism is. Are you going to go for the hat trick?
They call frank reporting and studies as racists because they show the truth, […]
Uh, no. For one thing, most studies don’t show that blacks are more likely to commit violence, so that’s just false. Most of the ones that did show such a connection either failed to consider confounding factors (like poverty), had small sample sizes or selection bias, or had other problems.
Time for you to get back to the science.
And we’ve got the hat trick! Yeah, based on the context, it’s clear that you don’t understand what science is, either.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pouches might not be the problem here
FTR, I’m not taking a side on the whole America vs. Europe thing. I just thought the other guy’s comment was dumb.
I will just add that it also included religious fanatics—but not necessarily criminals—who were mad they couldn’t persecute others or something (Puritans) and some who feared religious prosecution—like the Quakers—in certain parts of Europe. Not saying anything about the broader point you’re making; just noting that you missed at least one significant category there.
First off, thanks for the history lesson. I—and probably Techdirt—would likely agree that Hungary was wrong in canceling the Tocai. Tokaji is not confusingly similar to Tocai, and Tocai clearly had been in use for a long time. That is a clear example of trademark abuse, and it is perfectly understandable that Italy would wish to avoid a repeat of that. Additionally, no one here is saying that Italy shouldn’t oppose trademarks that are genuinely confusingly similar to Prosecco.
A couple things though.
First, I know nothing about cheese and don’t have a great palate or anything like that, but I’ve never bought or used parmesan thinking it was parmigiana. To be honest, I rarely use parmigiana at all for the simple reason that my palate isn’t refined enough to care about the differences between a number of cheeses. I just like parmesan because I think it’s fine. If anything, I’ve assumed that parmigiana is just a superior version of parmesan—basically that parmigiana is authentic Italian and parmesan is not—but it’s not something I get confused about. (Though, to be perfectly candid, parmesan, parmigiana, mozzarella, ricotta, cheddar, and American are the only cheeses I like, and only in specific dishes: parmesan, parmigiana, and melted mozzarella on pizza and pastas; ricotta in lasagna; cheddar in tacos (and maybe cheese quesadillas, but tbh I don’t know what cheese gets used in those); and American in grilled cheese. I’m not a huge fan of cheese outside of those particular dishes, so my opinions on cheese flavors and quality should be taken with a grain of salt. The main point, though, is that I never bought or used parmesan thinking it was the supposedly high-quality parmigiana.)
As far as the Prosecco "ripoffs" are concerned, I’m no wine expert, and I’m not exactly someone who buys wine, like, ever, but I think you may be blowing things out of proportion there.
First of all, I would argue that the wines you mentioned are clearly intended to be distinct from Prosecco even if they are imitations. Semisecco, Meer-secco, and Perisecco, for example, use prefixes to make clear that that they are—at best—subpar imitations of Prosecco. And none of these names look or sound anything like the full name “Prosecco”. I doubt anyone who is actually looking for Prosecco will see any of these wines will buy them thinking that they’re Prosecco, nor do I believe that the name “Prosecco” is likely to be sued over based upon trademarks of any of these names like what happened with Tokaji and Tocai (which are at least spelled similarly—two letters different, with one of the changed letters still making the same sound—and were named completely independently of each other). These may be imitations, to be sure, but the names seem to make it pretty clear that they are imitations (or are unrelated to Prosecco) and not the real deal.
Additionally, looking into the etymology, “secco” is apparently an Italian word that literally means “dry”, which is itself a commonly used adjective to describe the flavor of various wines, much like “sour” or “sweet”. So, arguably, it’s possible that some of those wines use “secco” in the name not to reference Prosecco but simply to refer to the dry flavor of the wine. If so, it’s a descriptive use, not a use to capitalize on the name “Prosecco” like you claim.
Even ignoring that, though, let’s look at the objections specifically mentioned in the article. After all, Techdirt doesn’t say that any opposition to trademarks because of Prosecco are necessarily silly; it’s more discriminatory than that. So, of the three mentioned in the article, two use “-secco” (Nosecco and Pawsecco) and one uses “Pro-” (Prosek).
With Pawsecco, it is clearly meant for pets’ consumption. Like, it’s right there in the name. If anyone buys Pawsecco thinking it’s Prosecco, there is something seriously wrong with them. Frankly, anyone who buys Pawsecco for human consumption and/or Prosecco for pet consumption is an idiot, too. The reference to Prosecco is clearly tongue-in-cheek, intended to make it sound wine-like by invoking names of actual wines. It’s like (and I’m just making this up off of the top of my head) “Mewscatto”; only a moron in a hurry would get confused by the name. It’s also unlikely that the makers of Pawsecco would sue over use of the word “Prosecco”.
With Nosecco, the name at least rhymes, but more important is that it starts with the word “no”, which I’m pretty sure would make people who see the word interpret it as meaning something like “not Prosecco”. It’s not even alcoholic; it’s a sparkling non-alcoholic “wine”. Again, I don’t see how people could get the two confused. Are there non-alcoholic Proseccos? And, again, given the use, I highly doubt they’d go after Prosecco.
Then there is the main subject of the article, Prosek. Unlike the other two in the article or the ones you mentioned, it doesn’t contain “secco” at all, nor could it possibly be interpreted as an attempt to rip off or capitalize on the fame of Prosecco. Indeed, it’s clear that the name and the wine were both developed completely independently from Prosecco. The two even have unrelated meanings: in Italian, “pro” roughly means “advantage” while “secco” means “dry”, but in Croatian, “prosek” literally means “average”. As such, renaming it doesn’t make any sense. As for customer confusion, I don’t think the names are that similar; I’d assume that any wine-buyer who is familiar with Prosecco and/or Prosek and is looking for either will get the two confused. Anyone who does get confused when buying wine probably isn’t familiar with different kinds of wine anyways or is so drunk they probably shouldn’t get any more wine.
Now, I would be willing to acknowledge the possibility of a repeat of the “Tokaji-Tocai” thing, but there are still a couple of problems. For one thing, according to the article, that’s not what is being complained about. No one mentions fear of Prosecco being removed from the lexicon or anything like that. It’s all about fear of customer confusion, and I simply don’t believe such fears are justified here. Second, I think there may be another option here: apply for “Prosecco” to be similarly protected. That should help ensure that what happened to Tocai won’t happen to Prosecco even if the application for Prosek gets approved. I just don’t think opposition to the application is the best strategy here.
Finally, a word on the last statement:
They are defending their rights, and customers' rights at the same time.
When a protected mark is being protected properly, that’s what should be the case: trademark’s primary purpose is to protect customers (which is very different from other IP rights, which are more meant to promote innovation and creativity by rewarding creators and inventors). It’s basically to prevent customers from being tricked into buying a knock-off, imitation, or counterfeit while thinking it’s the real deal. It’s also to help consumers identify the source, so that way a given company’s reputation doesn’t get spoiled by knock-offs or counterfeits, and consumers who prefer a specific maker or seller don’t get tricked into buying from someone else without knowing it. Again, the purpose is to protect consumers.
However, when someone goes overboard in either enforcing or contesting a trademark where no actual confusion is likely, that’s not protecting customer’s rights anymore. The Prosecco Group may have properly protected Prosecco before, but in these specific three instances, I believe they are seeing (or pretending to see) confusion where none exists, and so they are not acting as someone actually defending customers’ rights or their rights but rather a bully.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They should have complied
I don’t think you understand what “pointless” means.
[citation needed]
Irrelevant. They travel via tiny water droplets in your breath, and those are too large to fit through the pores.
Have you never heard of the phrase, “It’s better than nothing”? We simply don’t have enough such masks available for every single human being every single day.
On the post: Italy Vows To Bring Entire Government To Bear To Oppose Croatian 'Prosek' Trademark
Re:
WTF?
Prosecco isn’t a drug! It’s a wine! WTH are you talking about?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s an interesting idea, but it’s not terribly realistic, and we would need to work towards it step-by-step. Which is exactly what I was proposing. The only difference is where the final destination is. The “modifying privacy” thing would need to happen first before we could eliminate privacy the way you intend.
That said, since we’re discussing Japan, and you mentioned the whole “not getting away with it” sort of thing, are you aware that Japan currently has a major problem with sexual harassment and such in public and nobody doing anything about it?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How would removing legal recognition of marriage prevent laypeople from getting married? No, seriously, how?
Sure. But that’s not what this is about, really. It’s about marriage and language. As I believe I’ve made crystal clear, I believe those things are not defined by religion, so the FFRF holds no more weight on such matters than anyone else. Also, what did you say their position was? That they debate about it? So what? That they hold debates on the issue means nothing.
Most Republicans and some Democrats use the religious aspect of just about every term in debate. Marriage is in no way special in this regard. I still see no benefit in pretending they’re right when they are absolutely wrong.
Well, there is none, so problem solved. Sure, they may say they have a religious claim, but that doesn’t mean they’re right, and I see no reason to humor them by pretending they are.
Look, here’s the thing. I don’t see a meaningful problem to be solved here, and to the extent there is a problem at all, your idea won’t actually meaningfully solve the problem any better than what we already have. You can keep saying the same thing over and over again, but that won’t change anything.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think they would do so regardless of whether you call it “marriage”, “civil union”, or “domestic partnership”. Also, even among Republicans, there isn’t any real push to overturn gay marriage they way they want to overturn Roe v Wade.
The debate will largely continue in all likelihood, but it’s not particularly meaningful right now.
And this is a problem, but it’s also a separate discussion.
Based on the polling, it isn’t, really, at least not to the same extent. And to the extent that it is, your proposal won’t change that.
The fact is that states and Republicans have been fighting Roe v Wade pretty much from the start, but they aren’t really fighting like that against gay marriage. It is highly unlikely to happen with gay marriage. The ones who are fighting it don’t really care what you call it; most want homosexuality gone, period. The ones who support civil unions and are opposed to gay marriage will not accept having civil unions unless civil unions exclude straight couples having to have civil unions. You’re trying to reason with people who can’t be reasoned with.
On top of that, the way the court weaseled out of declaring the anti-abortion law unconstitutional couldn’t apply to gay marriage bans. The anti-abortion law only got past because it involved private action, and gay marriage is entirely about state recognition.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But not at the federal level.
Incorrect. The term “civil union” is not now and never has been federally recognized.
I disagree that it shouldn’t be there in the first place, and you absolutely are inserting something new to replace what you’re removing.
No, I can’t because it demonstrates that very same origin also demonstrates that it existed in law from the start. I can follow your idea, but I can’t understand how your conclusion follows from that.
Marriage has religious significance the same way that beards have religious significance to the Amish and childbirth has religious significance to a lot of groups. They did not invent it, nor do they have exclusive ownership to it. There is nothing about the term “marriage” that is inherently of religious significance.
Additionally, the alternate terminology is not readily accepted in legislation and judicial practice.
As such, I reject the premises of the question, which makes it inherently inapplicable to this discussion.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. That the Modern English term stems from a religious act regarding what the law is or should be is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Also, you say it’s coincidental, but it’s not. For one thing, it utterly eviscerates your point that marriage wasn’t part of the law because this was absolutely about the law! That means that, from your earliest research, marriage was in both religion and the law. They were not separate at that time.
A distinction without a difference. Or rather, the only difference was the rite, not the practice or really the terminology.
No, it’s when they accepted Christian marriage, not marriage, period.
Okay, well, currently no one recognizes civil unions at all, so the term legally has no power whatsoever and doesn’t even exist anymore. There has never been a point in history where “marriage” and “civil union” have ever been legally equivalent. I simply went back to the last time we had civil unions at all, and they were specifically intended to be distinct from marriage from the onset, and they had different results. So, from a purely legal standpoint, they have never both coexisted and been equivalent, and there has never been a time where “civil unions” existed without “marriage” coexisting.
Yeah, that’s where the loophole is. See, that provision ensures that everyone who gets married will also be in a civil union, but (crucially) it does not require that everyone in a civil union must be able to get marriage licensing in states that continue to issue such licensing. The only thing that provision does is to ensure that all marriages recognized at the state level still get all the same federal benefits; it doesn’t do anything to ensure that everyone who gets those federal benefits also get all the state benefits that married couples do.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
Re:
Fun Fact:
Right now, your body contains an entire ecosystem of microorganisms—some good, some bad, some neutral—whose DNA (or RNA) are completely different from yours. In fact, they’re even less similar to yours than a mother’s is to her fetus’s or whatever.
Not only that, but those sperm cells or unfertilized egg cells in your body? They also have different DNA from yours! In fact, they don’t even have the same amount of DNA as you!
And those cancer cells… Why, they also have different DNA that causes them to multiply to the point it’s dangerous!
And I guess transplanted organs and blood transfusions aren’t part of the recipients’ bodies, either. I mean, they also have completely different DNA.
And don’t get me started on chimerism! Why, those people are born with more than one set of distinct DNA in different cells in their body!
Do you see the problem yet?
On the post: Apple Training Videos Highlight Company's Adversarial Stance On Affordable Repairs
Re:
Okay, then let’s look at Apple as a fashion brand.
So, by analogy, inferior repairs will reflect poorly on the fashion brand, especially as those repaired dresses move through the ecosystem and are resold to someone who might not know they have been repaired by an unapproved shop.
Okay… Now, does anyone know of a fashion company that tries to inhibit repairs on dresses (or whatever it is they’re selling)? Or where this is in any way a problem in the fashion industry?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ve been following this whole issue closely for a long time. I’ve heard of absolutely no instances of a male dressed as a female doing that outside of fiction. At all. Maybe there are some in some places, but most? Definitely not.
As a disguise? Yes. However, as it pertains to bathrooms, it is a non-issue.
I have no idea what you mean by “variations in that separation”. That said, this is sounding like a cultural thing rather than a rights thing.
The issue is that if I don’t want people to see my privates, they shouldn’t see my privates. If other people don’t care if others see their privates, fine, but I fail to see why the option to keep them private shouldn’t be available.
First of all, this directly conflicts with your earlier issue regarding bathroom peep cameras. If she shouldn’t care if someone sees what’s under her dress, she should care if there’s a bathroom peep cam, either.
Second, I don’t want to force everyone to bare themselves if they don’t want to, nor do I believe they necessarily should want to. Different people are different. I don’t want to force them to abandon those differences.
I agree, but not for the same reasons. I think Western society is too focused on what happens in private.
I’m not against those things. I just believe people should be able to decide for themselves what about themselves they should keep private.
I agree with the first, but as for the second… I’m more along the lines of, “If you don’t want to show something don’t show it!” That said, if someone does show it, I agree that it shouldn’t matter if others want to look.
I guess you could say the difference is between someone looking at someone else who walks around naked and someone who flips up skirts to look, or between looking at an exhibitionist showing off and peeping on a person in their bedroom.
I’d like to see evidence of that, especially given the fact that casual groping occurs outside of restrooms and locker rooms, like on subways or at work, but for the record, I’m not opposed to having unisex restrooms and locker rooms. I just think that they should be made to allow for people to do whatever it is they’re doing in private if they wish to.
By increasing the opportunities for the crime, you reduce the crimes done in opportunity? I really don’t think you’ve thought this through. At all.
I agree. I just don’t think that works in your favor. As I said, I’m fine with unisex rooms, but I have a very different idea of how they work.
As a disabled person, I kinda need some accommodations, so I’m gonna take a hard pass on that.
Sounds nice. Absurdly idealistic with no grounds in reality, but nice.
Uh, no. See, here’s the thing. Remember when you said, “There’s a difference between someone who prefers the clothing and someone who simply plays dress up”? Yeah, there’s also a difference between being transgender and being transvestite. They are completely separate and unrelated things.
I agree that if you “want to put on a mini skirt and a tube top and dance in the rain,” that is your choice and none of my business. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with being transgender. Even if no piece of clothing was gender-specific, transgender people would still exist even though crossdressing would not.
As for the grouping, the distinction is always there. It’s just that it should only have a difference in specific contexts. I’m not against removing bathrooms or locker rooms from the contexts in which sex or gender are distinctions with a difference, but they are still groups. And there’s nothing artificial about it.
My experience with Asia is limited to Japan, and as far as I can tell, they still have separate public restrooms and baths for men and women (though there are some mixed baths that allow both men and women), and the women’s restrooms generally don’t have standing urinals as far as I can tell. I’m not against having women have standing urinals, but I’m unaware of that being common-practice anywhere.
Also, “X is common in culture/region Y” doesn’t necessarily mean we should change our culture to conform to that. It’s a good argument against claims that X can’t work at all or that X doesn’t exist, but that’s it.
I agree with the “just do it and leave” and, to an extent, “no need for separation,” but the body protective? I believe that people should have the right to be protective of their own bodies.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, my point in bringing up the polygamy thing in the Bible was to point out that religions don’t agree on the matter, and religions have changed the definition of marriage over time, so the argument by religious homophobes has no water and doesn’t merit any concessions like you propose.
Their argument never had a leg to stand on to begin with, so there are no kneecaps to cut them off at.
Look, if it doesn’t solve the problem, what’s the point?
I wasn’t sure about the exact number, but it doesn’t change my main point (not that it was that big of a deal, anyways).
No, it is not. That debate isn’t restricted to gay marriage. It’s also about stuff like adultery, divorce, gay adoption, sex outside of marriage, and a whole bunch of other things. You’ve only scratched the surface there.
Also, that ship sailed a looooooong time ago. The “sanctity of marriage” thing is and always has been illusory, at least how religious fundamentalists define it.
To be frank, I really don’t give a damn.
No, they don’t have a minor claim to the term, or at least not a valid claim to its use outside of their specific church. Like I said, throughout history, many languages have had terms for the practice with no connection to religion; none of those languages had a separate term for the same practice but restricted to religion.
They also have no claim to law for us to take away. That they believe they do is immaterial. (But if you think that that is the only claim they believe they have to law, you’re living in a fantasy world.)
You’re proposing granting something they never had to begin with in order to try to solve a meritless debate that doesn’t actually matter, and it likely won’t solve that debate anyways. I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that I don’t see that as having any actual benefits at all.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m opposed to the idea that marriage is exclusively a religious practice, so inserting a new term that is identical seems pointless to me. If the term marriage didn’t exist at all, I’d be fine with that. However, since that is not the case, I’m opposed. I think the whole thing is a waste of time.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m afraid you’re the one missing the point: It was never their word to begin with. You’re asking us to give them something they are not entitled to. As someone who loves to study language and a proponent of religious freedom, free speech, and equality, I cannot accept that.
Which is common, but it doesn’t really matter. We have a word, and some religious people think they own it and want to restrict its use. They are wrong to do so. They think tradition is on their side. They are wrong.
Uh, yes there is. During the time when some states recognized civil unions but not gay marriage, the federal government did not recognize civil unions at all, so any benefits in federal law that apply to married couples did not apply to civil unions. There was a similar problem in hospitals when it came to things like power of attorney.
Now, to the extent there is no difference between the two, there is no problem, and thus there is no point in solving the nonexistent problem.
So start there. The answer isn’t to change the language to enforce that artificial superiority, because that’s what you’re doing here.
You’ve left open a massive loophole there: states can still issue marriage licenses, and there is no requirement that states must provide civil unions the same rights and benefits as marriages. In order for your plan to not create a problem with gay rights, this has to apply equally at all levels of government.
You’re creating more problems than you’re attempting to solve, and I’m not even convinced that this would even solve the problem you’re trying to solve or that the problem is actually a problem!
On the post: FBI Sat On Ransomware Decryption Key For Weeks As Victims Lost Millions Of Dollars
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I got no idea, but then I’m not exactly the best with ciphers, at least at figuring out which cipher is being used and what key.
…which may be the point of the whole thing. It’s be nice if there was a hint, but yeah, I have no idea where to begin.
I think g = s given the number of times “'g” appears at the end of words, V = I since it appears capitalized on its own or in contractions, and I think i = v and r = e since you’ve got the contraction “V'ir” and I think the only contraction that would fit that pattern would be “I've”. From there, I’m guessing it’s symmetric (a = b iff b = a) rather than translational (xth letter maps to ((x-n) % 26 + 1)th letter of the alphabet (since i maps to v and vice versa, and then g and i have one letter in between them but map to letters (s and v, respectively) with two letters in between). If so, then s = g and e = r.
That’s all I’ve got so far, though. I’m just not seeing any pattern in the mapping aside from a single instance of symmetry that may extend to the rest of the mapping.
On the post: Fossil Fuel Companies Want Governments To Pay $18 Billion For Bringing In Laws Tackling The Climate Crisis Largely Caused By Fossil Fuel Companies
Re: ISDS is crap but that doesn't excuse this
Uhhhh… It is proven fact. The scientific consensus is crystal-clear on this.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: Changes
Right… So, all those black people who have complied with orders, reach for the glove compartment when asked to retrieve their license and registration when asked, and are then killed because the cop thought that they were reaching for a gun are the problem, not the cops who give orders and then shoot when the person attempts to comply.
Also, why should black people in particular take training in how to behave during traffic stops? As far as behaving goes, I’ve seen just as much bad behavior during traffic stops from white people as I have black people.
Says the guy who whines about cops and/or white people being victims all the time.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: Re: Only in 'murics
Yeah, I’m on board for removing qualified immunity and reducing the power and influence of police unions. I don’t care what their race is.
On the post: New Report On Predictive Policing Shows How New Tech Is Giving Us Little More Than The Same Old Racism
Re: Stating the obvious
I don’t think you know what “racism” means, because that statement right there is racist in itself, and it only gets worse in context.
Here’s the thing: a machine can only work with the data you put into it. If the cops are plugging in data based on their racist views and unequal enforcement, the computer can’t just magically remove the racism from the data. Garbage in, garbage out.
No one is saying black violence doesn’t happen. Only an idiot would say that. Saying that blacks are more likely to be violent after controlling for other factors like economic status is the problem here.
Ummmm… Do you not realize that that assumption about their skin color is also racist? Also, it’s pretty typical for bigots to say, “I’m not a bigot! You’re a bigot!” What are you, 12?
And now you show you don’t know what mental illness is on top of not understanding what racism is. Are you going to go for the hat trick?
Uh, no. For one thing, most studies don’t show that blacks are more likely to commit violence, so that’s just false. Most of the ones that did show such a connection either failed to consider confounding factors (like poverty), had small sample sizes or selection bias, or had other problems.
And we’ve got the hat trick! Yeah, based on the context, it’s clear that you don’t understand what science is, either.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pouches might not be the problem here
FTR, I’m not taking a side on the whole America vs. Europe thing. I just thought the other guy’s comment was dumb.
I will just add that it also included religious fanatics—but not necessarily criminals—who were mad they couldn’t persecute others or something (Puritans) and some who feared religious prosecution—like the Quakers—in certain parts of Europe. Not saying anything about the broader point you’re making; just noting that you missed at least one significant category there.
On the post: Italy Vows To Bring Entire Government To Bear To Oppose Croatian 'Prosek' Trademark
Re: many things you are omitting
First off, thanks for the history lesson. I—and probably Techdirt—would likely agree that Hungary was wrong in canceling the Tocai. Tokaji is not confusingly similar to Tocai, and Tocai clearly had been in use for a long time. That is a clear example of trademark abuse, and it is perfectly understandable that Italy would wish to avoid a repeat of that. Additionally, no one here is saying that Italy shouldn’t oppose trademarks that are genuinely confusingly similar to Prosecco.
A couple things though.
First, I know nothing about cheese and don’t have a great palate or anything like that, but I’ve never bought or used parmesan thinking it was parmigiana. To be honest, I rarely use parmigiana at all for the simple reason that my palate isn’t refined enough to care about the differences between a number of cheeses. I just like parmesan because I think it’s fine. If anything, I’ve assumed that parmigiana is just a superior version of parmesan—basically that parmigiana is authentic Italian and parmesan is not—but it’s not something I get confused about. (Though, to be perfectly candid, parmesan, parmigiana, mozzarella, ricotta, cheddar, and American are the only cheeses I like, and only in specific dishes: parmesan, parmigiana, and melted mozzarella on pizza and pastas; ricotta in lasagna; cheddar in tacos (and maybe cheese quesadillas, but tbh I don’t know what cheese gets used in those); and American in grilled cheese. I’m not a huge fan of cheese outside of those particular dishes, so my opinions on cheese flavors and quality should be taken with a grain of salt. The main point, though, is that I never bought or used parmesan thinking it was the supposedly high-quality parmigiana.)
As far as the Prosecco "ripoffs" are concerned, I’m no wine expert, and I’m not exactly someone who buys wine, like, ever, but I think you may be blowing things out of proportion there.
First of all, I would argue that the wines you mentioned are clearly intended to be distinct from Prosecco even if they are imitations. Semisecco, Meer-secco, and Perisecco, for example, use prefixes to make clear that that they are—at best—subpar imitations of Prosecco. And none of these names look or sound anything like the full name “Prosecco”. I doubt anyone who is actually looking for Prosecco will see any of these wines will buy them thinking that they’re Prosecco, nor do I believe that the name “Prosecco” is likely to be sued over based upon trademarks of any of these names like what happened with Tokaji and Tocai (which are at least spelled similarly—two letters different, with one of the changed letters still making the same sound—and were named completely independently of each other). These may be imitations, to be sure, but the names seem to make it pretty clear that they are imitations (or are unrelated to Prosecco) and not the real deal.
Additionally, looking into the etymology, “secco” is apparently an Italian word that literally means “dry”, which is itself a commonly used adjective to describe the flavor of various wines, much like “sour” or “sweet”. So, arguably, it’s possible that some of those wines use “secco” in the name not to reference Prosecco but simply to refer to the dry flavor of the wine. If so, it’s a descriptive use, not a use to capitalize on the name “Prosecco” like you claim.
Even ignoring that, though, let’s look at the objections specifically mentioned in the article. After all, Techdirt doesn’t say that any opposition to trademarks because of Prosecco are necessarily silly; it’s more discriminatory than that. So, of the three mentioned in the article, two use “-secco” (Nosecco and Pawsecco) and one uses “Pro-” (Prosek).
With Pawsecco, it is clearly meant for pets’ consumption. Like, it’s right there in the name. If anyone buys Pawsecco thinking it’s Prosecco, there is something seriously wrong with them. Frankly, anyone who buys Pawsecco for human consumption and/or Prosecco for pet consumption is an idiot, too. The reference to Prosecco is clearly tongue-in-cheek, intended to make it sound wine-like by invoking names of actual wines. It’s like (and I’m just making this up off of the top of my head) “Mewscatto”; only a moron in a hurry would get confused by the name. It’s also unlikely that the makers of Pawsecco would sue over use of the word “Prosecco”.
With Nosecco, the name at least rhymes, but more important is that it starts with the word “no”, which I’m pretty sure would make people who see the word interpret it as meaning something like “not Prosecco”. It’s not even alcoholic; it’s a sparkling non-alcoholic “wine”. Again, I don’t see how people could get the two confused. Are there non-alcoholic Proseccos? And, again, given the use, I highly doubt they’d go after Prosecco.
Then there is the main subject of the article, Prosek. Unlike the other two in the article or the ones you mentioned, it doesn’t contain “secco” at all, nor could it possibly be interpreted as an attempt to rip off or capitalize on the fame of Prosecco. Indeed, it’s clear that the name and the wine were both developed completely independently from Prosecco. The two even have unrelated meanings: in Italian, “pro” roughly means “advantage” while “secco” means “dry”, but in Croatian, “prosek” literally means “average”. As such, renaming it doesn’t make any sense. As for customer confusion, I don’t think the names are that similar; I’d assume that any wine-buyer who is familiar with Prosecco and/or Prosek and is looking for either will get the two confused. Anyone who does get confused when buying wine probably isn’t familiar with different kinds of wine anyways or is so drunk they probably shouldn’t get any more wine.
Now, I would be willing to acknowledge the possibility of a repeat of the “Tokaji-Tocai” thing, but there are still a couple of problems. For one thing, according to the article, that’s not what is being complained about. No one mentions fear of Prosecco being removed from the lexicon or anything like that. It’s all about fear of customer confusion, and I simply don’t believe such fears are justified here. Second, I think there may be another option here: apply for “Prosecco” to be similarly protected. That should help ensure that what happened to Tocai won’t happen to Prosecco even if the application for Prosek gets approved. I just don’t think opposition to the application is the best strategy here.
Finally, a word on the last statement:
When a protected mark is being protected properly, that’s what should be the case: trademark’s primary purpose is to protect customers (which is very different from other IP rights, which are more meant to promote innovation and creativity by rewarding creators and inventors). It’s basically to prevent customers from being tricked into buying a knock-off, imitation, or counterfeit while thinking it’s the real deal. It’s also to help consumers identify the source, so that way a given company’s reputation doesn’t get spoiled by knock-offs or counterfeits, and consumers who prefer a specific maker or seller don’t get tricked into buying from someone else without knowing it. Again, the purpose is to protect consumers.
However, when someone goes overboard in either enforcing or contesting a trademark where no actual confusion is likely, that’s not protecting customer’s rights anymore. The Prosecco Group may have properly protected Prosecco before, but in these specific three instances, I believe they are seeing (or pretending to see) confusion where none exists, and so they are not acting as someone actually defending customers’ rights or their rights but rather a bully.
Next >>