Brand Name Use??

[Boonter66]

Not certain where to put this question, but here goes:

I'm working on a story where erectile disfunction (ED) and response thereto is part of the play. The story line hinges on the use of a specific type and brand of ED product. Can or should I mention the product used to solve the ED problem by its trade / brand name?

Your thoughts, or links to Literotica policy would be appreciated.

Thanks & Happiness,

Boonter

 

[sr71plt]

You can use trademarked product names in fiction with little trouble (a little more trouble in nonfiction--there you might get in litigation if what you wrote damaged the product reputation without evidence to back you up--creative license protects you from litigation here in fiction).

You do have to render the name as trademarked (but don't include the tradmark symbol). To find out what is trademarked and how it's properly rendered, go to the checklist on www.inta.org (Web site of the Internaitonal Trademark Association).

 

[Boonter66]

Thanks for the reply.

So other than using the ® symbol, how do I ". . . render the name as trademarked?"

ps: It will be interesting to see if the circle+R that I inserted above will show correctly here.

Happiness,

Boonter

 

[sr71plt]

Thanks for the reply.

So other than using the ® symbol, how do I ". . . render the name as trademarked?"

ps: It will be interesting to see if the circle+R that I inserted above will show correctly here.

Happiness,

Boonter

You don't use the symbol. You don't do anything but render the term as trademarked.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Reptile dysfunction?

 

[Boonter66]

You don't use the symbol. You don't do anything but render the term as trademarked.

Not deliberately trying to be dense (sometimes it comes naturally), but exactly what does that mean? Maybe you could provide an example?

On edit: Perhaps you mean to render it as it (the product) is trademarked? Such as "He took a Cialis tablet."

Thanks,

Boonter

 

[Darkniciad]

Hmm... digging through the reference, that sort of puts some common ways of identifying products & services in the "wrong" category.

AAA as triple-A, for example. Sort of puts you in a quandry when they're mentioned in dialogue and rendering the trademark properly just comes off unnatural.

Makes me glad that I generally avoid specific product placement when I'm writing

 

[sr71plt]

Not deliberately trying to be dense (sometimes it comes naturally), but exactly what does that mean? Maybe you could provide an example?

On edit: Perhaps you mean to render it as it (the product) is trademarked? Such as "He took a Cialis tablet."

Thanks,

Boonter

Cialis hasn't made the ITA checklist yet, but, yes, you would render it Cialis.

Check out the ITA checklist. I'll provide a URL on that portion of the "C" list: http://inta.org/index.php?option=com_trademarkchecklist&func=display&page=5&catid=123&Itemid=0&getcontent=1&letter=C

But if you don't find your specific brand name on the list, go to that company's Web site (by googling) and take the spelling they put on the company Web site (which is where I just check for the proper rendering of Cialis).

And if you find the trademark sign on the product name on URL sites, this still doesn't mean you need to include the sign in the text of a story.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I mention brand names regularly, including Viagra. Most of my first person stories have a reference. I also refer to driving a Toyota Tundra and using Aqualube. I used to refer to KY Jelly, but readers criticized that brand. I was in a drug store one day and I saw Aquaglide and Astrolube on the shelf, so I decided to combine those names and came up with Aqualube. Later, I found out that is another brand name.

As long as nothing negative is said, there should be no problem. Even if you refer to a brand as crap, there would almost certainly be no problem, because we're kind of below the radar here. Referring to coke (lower case) as a generic beverage might get you in trouble, because they're pretty aggressive about maintaining their trade name.

 

[sr71plt]

IAs long as nothing negative is said, there should be no problem. Even if you refer to a brand as crap, there would almost certainly be no problem, because we're kind of below the radar here. Referring to coke (lower case) as a generic beverage might get you in trouble, because they're pretty aggressive about maintaining their trade name.

As I noted, you can be much freer and more critical in fiction than nonfiction. Creative license is protected in fiction.

 

[DeeZire]

I got a kick out of that ITA site saying some brands must be used as adjectives describing a noun, but they can't be used as nouns, other brands may be used as nouns, and no brands can be used as verbs. What century are they living in over there? Have they never heard of the term "Google"?

 

[sr71plt]

I got a kick out of that ITA site saying some brands must be used as adjectives describing a noun, but they can't be used as nouns, other brands may be used as nouns, and no brands can be used as verbs. What century are they living in over there? Have they never heard of the term "Google"?

Not quite sure what you mean. Trademarking is a legal issue. What does google have to do with it? We're talking about liability. You can physically use the terms any way you like and spell them any way you like. The only time you need worry about how a term is trademarked is if you want to minimize the risk of being sued successfully.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not quite sure what you mean. Trademarking is a legal issue. What does google have to do with it? We're talking about liability. You can physically use the terms any way you like and spell them any way you like. The only time you need worry about how a term is trademarked is if you want to minimize the risk of being sued successfully.

"Google" is a brand name and we commonly use it as a verb.

ETA: There are probably quite a few other words, such as Simonized, meaning waxed a car, if we thought about it.

 

[sr71plt]

"Google" is a brand name and we commonly use it as a verb.

ETA: There are probably quite a few other words, such as Simonized, meaning waxed a car, if we thought about it.

OK, now a gotcha, although the examples aren't a proglem. Google isn't on the trademark list yet and will probably be in the dictionary as a verb before it does make the trademarked list (and therefore free game as a verb). Simonized (but without the capped "s") is in the dictionary as a verb (so is certainly free game to use as a verb).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

'Coke' is generic for soft-drink in the South. I cant imagine Coca-Cola trying to win the issue with a Southern jury. Plus Southern writers do use 'Coke, ' I've seen it.

'Frigidaire' is another Southern generic.

'Moon Pie.'

 

[sr71plt]

BOX

'Coke' is generic for soft-drink in the South. I cant imagine Coca-Cola trying to win the issue with a Southern jury. Plus Southern writers do use 'Coke, ' I've seen it.

'Frigidaire' is another Southern generic.

'Moon Pie.'

All three of these are trademarked names and you have used them correctly (and I've never seen them rendered incorrectly), so I'm not at all sure what your point is.

Coca-Cola is often misrendered (without the hyphen), but as you've used it correctly, I, again, don't know what your point is.

The Coca-Cola company, incidentally, is one of those litigious companies (along with Disney) that sometimes makes rumbling legal sounds when its products are denigrated in fiction--but thus far it haven't gotten anywhere on the basis of the creative license given to fiction. In any event, these companies wouldn't go after any use that hadn't made significant money off or lots of embarrassment value from the work.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Coca Cola registered Coke as a trademark in 1945, so it appears they locked the barn after the horse got loose into the vernacular. The general public called the product 'coke' before Coca-Cola did.

 

[sr71plt]

Coca Cola registered Coke as a trademark in 1945, so it appears they locked the barn after the horse got loose into the vernacular. The general public called the product 'coke' before Coca-Cola did.

No, the general public called it "Coke," just like you did the first time. (This meaning of Coke is capped in the dictionary. The lowercased coke has other meanings.)

And Coca-Cola (interesting that you misrendered it the second time and got it right in your first posting.) couldn't have gotten it trademarked if the government had determined that the word was already in the public domain in that context.

So, in searching for a point, you seem to have locked the barn after the horse got out yourself.

Since my point was that you could use such words in writing, I continue not seeing whatever point you thought you had.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My point is 'Coke' isnt a real brand. You likely cant use the name on a bottle of pop, but you can use it in speech. If I post something like "Coke is dangerous shit.' who knows what my referential indices is/are. Coke existed before 'Coca-Cola' did.

More to the point, Coca-Cola cant claim an exclusive right to the color 'red' or the script they use to depict the tradename 'Coca-Cola,' red and the script are in the public domain. But you cant juxtapose them on a poster that says "Enjoy Cocaine.'

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I can only add that youre one of God's special varmints with limited senses.

 

[sr71plt]

My point is 'Coke' isnt a real brand. You likely cant use the name on a bottle of pop, but you can use it in speech. If I post something like "Coke is dangerous shit.' who knows what my referential indices is/are. Coke existed before 'Coca-Cola' did.

More to the point, Coca-Cola cant claim an exclusive right to the color 'red' or the script they use to depict the tradename 'Coca-Cola,' red and the script are in the public domain. But you cant juxtapose them on a poster that says "Enjoy Cocaine.'

Again, I don't see your point. "Coke" is a brand name. It's tradmarked (check out the list yourself--but I guess you don't do that sort of thing). And it would not have been given a trademark if the word had been recognized as preexisting in the public domain (like the word "red"). And of course you can use it in speech--and in writing. That was the point I made way up the line--which sort of makes your posts irrelevant even on the point you say you're making.

Incidentally, it's the word "cola" that was in the public domain (1920) before Coca-Cola came around and that is a generic name that can't be trademarked. Maybe you are just confused on the word you meant. (Which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Check it yourself. 'Coke' was registered in 1945. Youre correct about the cola word. But coke was in existence since the 1700s.

 

[sr71plt]

Check it yourself. 'Coke' was registered in 1945. Youre correct about the cola word. But coke was in existence since the 1700s.

OK, if you insist on not accepting the obvious (which is that you are snorting pointlessly), go ahead and float off in your space.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I love how you remind me of Emily Latella...NEVER MIND!!!!

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ILY+LATELLA&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N

 

[sr71plt]

I love how you remind me of Emily Latella...NEVER MIND!!!!

And I love how you remind me of Elmer Fudd (indlucing your Avatar).