Yes, in context, the argument is not ridiculous. But the relevant question is about claim construction and whether patent drafters must clearly an explicitly define the terms used within the patent if the meaning of the term is contrary to common usage. I think such a rule makes sense even if the way the term is used in context shows that it is highly likely (as it is here) that they meant something different than the usual definition. The less ambiguity in a patent, the better. This rule will (ideally) encourage narrower drafting and result in better patents.
This story is interesting but could have been much better if it didn't perpetuate the myth that registration of a trademark is equivalent to ownership of trademark rights. As others here have noted, one does not need registration to acquire trademark rights. In fact, (with limited exceptions) one must prove that one has a trademark before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will register a mark.
In the United States, one acquires trademark rights by using a trademark in commerce. Registration provides benefits for enforcement but does not create trademark rights. This is why cancellation of the Redskins USPTO registrations (almost universally, and erroneously, reported as cancellation of the "trademarks") does not mean that the football team cannot enforce the "redskins" trademark. It only means that they lost (or will lose if they lose their appeal) certain benefits that come from federal registration.
There is much confusion among the public about the way trademark law operates. Techdirt generally does a much better job than most media outlets at explaining such issues but could do better.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Andrew Lopata.
Re: Reading the argument...
Registration with the USPTO does NOT make a trademark
In the United States, one acquires trademark rights by using a trademark in commerce. Registration provides benefits for enforcement but does not create trademark rights. This is why cancellation of the Redskins USPTO registrations (almost universally, and erroneously, reported as cancellation of the "trademarks") does not mean that the football team cannot enforce the "redskins" trademark. It only means that they lost (or will lose if they lose their appeal) certain benefits that come from federal registration.
There is much confusion among the public about the way trademark law operates. Techdirt generally does a much better job than most media outlets at explaining such issues but could do better.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Andrew Lopata.
Submit a story now.