Proper use of the word PHOTOSHOP...... dont get yourself into any legal mess =D =p

[vince123123]

From the recent postings, I think some people may have gotten a wrong idea on the usage of the (R) sign (not sure whether its a result of my posts or otherwise).

There is nothing wrong in referring to a trade mark without putting the (R). It is only an offence when you misrepresent to others that you have a REGISTERED trade mark (one form of which is putting the (R) when it is not registered), when in fact your trade mark is not registered.

Hope this helps.

 

[Youhong]

How about (C) and TM ???

 

[huggable]

From now on, we better say "fotoshop", or fs, to avoid getting ourselves being sued till bankrupt!

 

[Andy Ang]

Piang®, Now® Post® Anything® Also® Must® Be® Careful®, Everything® Must Put® Trademark®, Else® Scarly® Kena® Sue®.

+1®.

SIao liao. You will get sued by "Must". Forgot to put the sign. ;p

 

[vince123123]

He got put the sign for the first instance of "Must" leh.

SIao liao. You will get sued by "Must". Forgot to put the sign. ;p

 

[Andy Ang]

but not the second one loor. ;-p

 

[vince123123]

Does it make a difference?

but not the second one loor. ;-p

 

[Andy Ang]

You think got then got loor. Think don't have then don't have loor.

 

[vince123123]

Lol, means you don't have an answer and this statement is redundant LOL.

You think got then got loor. Think don't have then don't have loor.

 

[Andy Ang]

Nope, meaning that your question is redundant. Cos it doesn't matter.

 

[vince123123]

Then just answer "No, it doesn't make a difference" in response to my question. Your current answer does not state that my question was redundant.

Nope, meaning that your question is redundant. Cos it doesn't matter.

 

[Andy Ang]

Then just answer "No, it doesn't make a difference" in response to my question. Your current answer does not state that my question was redundant.

Why must I say Yes or No to your question when it is redundant? Just to entertain you?
Or you are in a bout of who's the last one to post. If its the latter, you win.

 

[vince123123]

You don't have to answer anything, just leave it unanswered.

As for your second point, I think you're the one who is in the bout you are alleging - as is evident by your need to provide a irrelevant answer to what you perceive to be a redundant question.

And as for your allegation that the question is redundant, if you think the question is redundant, and that you think it makes no difference whether the (R) sign is on one but not both instances of "MUST", then why did you see a need to state that it is not on the second instance of "MUST"? Or are you again in that bout of being the last one to post? LOL

Why must I say Yes or No to your question when it is redundant? Just to entertain you?
Or you are in a bout of who's the last one to post. If its the latter, you win.

 

[scenar]

Why must I say Yes or No to your question when it is redundant? Just to entertain you?
Or you are in a bout of who's the last one to post. If its the latter, you win.

:bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[jOhO]

Piang®, Now® Post® Anything® Also® Must® Be® Careful®, Everything® Must Put® Trademark®, Else® Scarly® Kena® Sue®.

+1®.

MAUAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAhahahahahhahahah

oh crap i think i woke my neighbours up...

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[zoossh]

It is questionable whether any legal mess would be gotten into from improper usage of the word photoshop in ways other than to designate a trade mark. Contrary to the view of the thread starter, I don't think that is what the article is about.

What the article really is about is an attempt by Adobe to educate the consumer about its trade marks. This is a preemptive move (or sometimes a move too late) to prevent its trade marks from being rendered generic in the eyes of the public. Xerox spent tons of money on similar advertising and education campaigns because its "XEROX" mark was in danger (and probably already is) of being generic.

If an attack is subsequently made on the distinctiveness of the trade mark (say as a defence against an infringement suit), the company will then whip up these educational materials and said that it has made efforts to prevent such genericism.

Many trade marks have been rendered generic in the course of public use, and when that happens, they are at risk of not being able to do the job it started out as, to serve as a badge of origin and identify the goods and services with a particular proprietor.

Notable generic ex-trade marks - scotch tape, panadol, escalator, zipper etc.

actually does panadol faces a decreased sale because people thinks that all paracetamol are panadol? i thought not. most people still get panadol becos it is probably the most available on the shelves, and probably other people will not think that biogesic are essentially paracetamol too (somemore being yellow in color).

what is probably more of a concern is a product's patent is being ignored and rampantly reproduced in large quantities at a much cheaper price. look at the nalgene's bottles and we see every single imitate, so who would want to buy the more expensive nalgene which somemore is now made in the same country to cut cost?

essentially i could not see why and how the Photoshop being used as another generic term, would impact on its position, becos essentially most photoediting would be correlated to Photoshop and new-comers may just well thinks that Adobe Photoshop is the product for photoediting, dismissing the others as somewhat less original or inferior. familiar users would of cos chose the product by its features. so either way, it would not affect Adobe, or rather i think other software companies would be the one affected instead.

It is unless that Adobe set up this brandname, and it becomes legally generic with other companies able to use the brandname of Photoshop onto theirs, then that is a different story, and probably where Adobe should then start to be concerned.

 

[Andy Ang]

:bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Thanks scenar, my sentiments exactly. :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

My sentiments too

:bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

The reason why generizing of trade marks is of concern to trade mark proprietors is because once a trade mark has been rendered generic, the trade mark proprietor may have difficulties enforcing their registered (and possibly unregistered) trade mark rights.

This means that for example, if the word Photoshop becomes generic. This means that I can also make my own trade mark, say Vince Photoshop or something to that effect, or maybe something more universal, say "Super Photoshop" and start producing say, other types of graphical editing software, maybe addons or plugins. There maybe consumers who thought that my software comes from Adobe, whenit is actually my own.

And now, when Adobe tries to stop it, they would then have an uphill task to overcome issues that their mark has become generic etc etc.

The last paragraph of your post (from what I understand of it), is the precise position which would happen when a brand becomes generic.

actually does panadol faces a decreased sale because people thinks that all paracetamol are panadol? i thought not. most people still get panadol becos it is probably the most available on the shelves, and probably other people will not think that biogesic are essentially paracetamol too (somemore being yellow in color).

what is probably more of a concern is a product's patent is being ignored and rampantly reproduced in large quantities at a much cheaper price. look at the nalgene's bottles and we see every single imitate, so who would want to buy the more expensive nalgene which somemore is now made in the same country to cut cost?

essentially i could not see why and how the Photoshop being used as another generic term, would impact on its position, becos essentially most photoediting would be correlated to Photoshop and new-comers may just well thinks that Adobe Photoshop is the product for photoediting, dismissing the others as somewhat less original or inferior. familiar users would of cos chose the product by its features. so either way, it would not affect Adobe, or rather i think other software companies would be the one affected instead.

It is unless that Adobe set up this brandname, and it becomes legally generic with other companies able to use the brandname of Photoshop onto theirs, then that is a different story, and probably where Adobe should then start to be concerned.

 

[zoossh]

The reason why generizing of trade marks is of concern to trade mark proprietors is because once a trade mark has been rendered generic, the trade mark proprietor may have difficulties enforcing their registered (and possibly unregistered) trade mark rights.

This means that for example, if the word Photoshop becomes generic. This means that I can also make my own trade mark, say Vince Photoshop or something to that effect, or maybe something more universal, say "Super Photoshop" and start producing say, other types of graphical editing software, maybe addons or plugins. There maybe consumers who thought that my software comes from Adobe, whenit is actually my own.

And now, when Adobe tries to stop it, they would then have an uphill task to overcome issues that their mark has become generic etc etc.

The last paragraph of your post (from what I understand of it), is the precise position which would happen when a brand becomes generic.

ok, would the common (generic) use of the public in an informal way be a legally plausible argument to override the rights to a registered trademark? that means if more people is going to use Photoshop in an informal way, now can anyone use Photoshop as their own trademark and still win the case?