Re: Jeep is a trademark of Chrysler

[Mike <ap...@good-with-numbers.com>]

The principle to trademark infringement is whether it creates
confusion in the marketplace.  "Jeep" is a widely recognized trademark
in this country, and has been applied to non-vehicular, "lifestyle"
products, I believe, though nothing like an app server!  So there's
potential for confusion, but it's arguable.  And we have enough to
argue about right now.

To add to the confusion, Jeep actually released a vehicle called
"Apache"!

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:40:42PM -0500, Patrice Le Vexier wrote:
> Is the trademark in US protects only similar services or products ? If the
> product is different, car (or other) versus app server, it is not possible
> to use it ?
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : n. alex rupp [mailto:rupp0035@umn.edu]
> 
> You cannot name the project "Jeep".  The word is a trademarc of the Chrysler
> corporation, so it's out of bounds for the same reason as "Kleenex",
> "Frisbee"
> and "Cheetos".

Re: Jeep is a trademark of Chrysler

["n. alex rupp" <ru...@umn.edu>]

IANAL, but the facts remain.

The word "Jeep" is not a word in any other context but that used to define the
WWII General Purpose military vehicle and its derivatives.  Except perhaps as a
character in Popeye comics.  My point is that the word is contrived, not a part
of standard vocabulary.

At Dictionary.com it's defined as "A trademark used for a civilian motor
vehicle."

So the principle below is beside the point.  As intellectual property, that
particular word is not a part of the public domain and cannot be used.  Like
"Frisbee" brand flying discs and "Kleenex" brand facial tissues, "Jeep" is not
applicable to any other usage.

--
N.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike" <ap...@good-with-numbers.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Jeep is a trademark of Chrysler


> The principle to trademark infringement is whether it creates
> confusion in the marketplace.  "Jeep" is a widely recognized trademark
> in this country, and has been applied to non-vehicular, "lifestyle"
> products, I believe, though nothing like an app server!  So there's
> potential for confusion, but it's arguable.  And we have enough to
> argue about right now.
>
> To add to the confusion, Jeep actually released a vehicle called
> "Apache"!
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:40:42PM -0500, Patrice Le Vexier wrote:
> > Is the trademark in US protects only similar services or products ? If the
> > product is different, car (or other) versus app server, it is not possible
> > to use it ?
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : n. alex rupp [mailto:rupp0035@umn.edu]
> >
> > You cannot name the project "Jeep".  The word is a trademarc of the Chrysler
> > corporation, so it's out of bounds for the same reason as "Kleenex",
> > "Frisbee"
> > and "Cheetos".
>