> Sam wrote:
> > FYI, the phrase "touch tones" is not trademarked by anyone anymore. I
> > don't know that it ever was, but the misconception is that it at least
> > still is. It's not.
> Ward wrote:
> > Never was that I know of. And if it had been, we'd have heard
> > something about a lawsuit.
> In the United States, Touchtone was a registered trademark of AT&T. I'm
> not sure when they gave it up; it may have been at the time of the
> divestiture. A query of the trademark database reveals seven current
> registered trademarks incorporating the word touchtone:
> Touchtone Invest
> Fidelity Touchtone Xpress
> Touchtone Xpress
> Touchtone Jobsline
> Touchtone Rentsline
> Touchtone Transportation
> Touchtone Trader
> The last of these was the earliest filed, on March 26, 1992, so I think
> it's a safe bet that AT&T gave up the trademark before that date.
> In some countries Touchtone is still a trademark of the applicable telephone
> company or agency. For example, in the UK it is a registered trademark of
> British Telecommunications PLC:
AFAIK these trademarks have only been non exclusive.
For Trademarks there is a distinction between exclusive
and non exclusive use - to name a easy to understand
US based example, there is the trademark 'White House'
(or Whitehouse or whitehouse) - this trademark is at
least owned by 10 different companies (including the
famous whitehouse.com), but non of them exclusive.
Trademarks are normaly only given for a special product
class - for example, a PTC can trademark Touchtone
for their telephones, but a musical instrument company
can also trademark the same name for lets day a drum
computer. Sometimes a trademark could also be non
exclusive within a group. Gerneral Trademarks are
rare (or should be, but most trademark agancies today
grant them to easy - especialy if a BIG company wants
to take it).
Gruss
Hans
(not a lawyer - just a burned child)
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Fri Dec 11 1998 - 12:24:59 GMT