🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 30 Aug 96 17:37:50  GMT, Shez <Sh...@sv.span.com> wrote:

>r...@fc.hp.com (Ray Depew) writes:
>> Brenda Bass wrote:
>>
>> : >	  compact
>> : >	  d i s c
>>
>> : Uh, Dan... FWIW, my CD-ROM drive has no logo on it.  Nothing
>> : at all identifies it as a CD-ROM.
>>
>> (Serious here)  It really doesn't?  Paging Terry Carroll!

You rang?

>>                                                              I've seen
>> the logo that Dan mentioned on every -- well, I guess every -- CD player
>> or CD-ROM drive I've ever seen.  The distinctive logo ignores brand names,
>> et cetera.  If it chews on a CD, it has that logo on it.  I thought there
>> was some legal connection between the hardware and the logo, like
>> trademarking or something.

It could be a trademark, or a ... damn, I can't remember the name, I think
it's "certification mark", to indicate that the device in question is
certified to meet the specifications specified by the owner of the
certification mark.

>"Compact disc" will be a Philips trade mark, as they invented CDs.

Trademark has nothing to do with inventorship.  Inventorship is a patent
concept.  One obtains a patent by inventing something, and completing a
patent application that specifies what is invented and claimed.  In the
U.S., one obtains a trademark (or service mark, or certification mark) by
using the mark in commerce to identify a good (or identify a service, or
identify compliance with the certification requirement).  In some
jurisdictions, a trademark is obtained by registration, rather than use.

(The above is a quick gloss -- there are exceptions and details I haven't
mentioned, but that's the basics.)

In the U.S., the sole link is that trademarks and patents are both
administered by the Patent and Trademark Office.

>While the patents last every manufacturer in the world will have to pay
>them a royalty and acknowledge them by showing the compact disc logo.

You may be on to something here, as the patent owner may require the use
of the logo as a condition of a license, but that's a matter of the
individual contract, and not a matter of law in the absence of such a
contract.

Generally, a patent owner will require the licensee to mark the product,
but not with some distinctive logo, which give no legal advantage
(although it may have some marketing elan).  The usual marking requirement
is for the licensee to mark with the patent number.   Failing to mark can
significantly reduce damages.

FWIW, I'm looking at my Sony CDR-93, and don't see any patent marking.
 
--
Terry Carroll       | "In a professional sports league game played in the
Santa Clara, CA     | United States, the head referee ... shall ... in the
car...@tjc.com     | event of conflicting calls, review instant replay to
Modell delenda est  | determine the correct call." - House Bill H.R. 3096