As I munch my Aero chocolate bar and clutch my Vanson Highwayman jacket even tighter.That is consistent with UK TM law, yes. A trade mark can be either common law, or registered. A common law mark can only be protected while the person wishing to use it can show that they have the "goodwill" in the name (i.e. the market associates it specifically with them). A TM registered under the system set out in legislation (currently in the UK the Trade Marks Act 1994) - hence Registered Trade Mark - allows the holder a monopoly to use the mark against all others, preventing either the use of an identical mark for a wide range of similar goods, or a similar mark for indentical goods. The concept of the TM, at least in theory, is to allow the customer to be able to distinguish the source of the goods (debatable in these days of mulitnational conglomerates, but still) - prevention of confusion. It'd be likely that I'd be ruled in breach of a Registrered TM in Aero if I set up a rival company and incorporated "Aero" into the name, or if I made a jacket based on an identical design to one of their existing range and gave it a similar name, incorporating "Aero" or Highwayman or whatever into that name. In the eyes of the law, it's the same thing as those "Calvin Kay" undercrackers you see on cheap marketstalls. A UK Registered Trade Mark, crucially, must be re-registered every ten years in order to remain valid. Again, usage is crucial: if the registered mark is not actually used in trade, it can be presumed to have been registered in bad faith (i.e. for purposes other than the protection of a trade mark - such as to prevent others from using the mark even where there is no intent for a company to use it itself). This is common across the world, including in the US. This will be why Highwayman was up for grabs when Aero started using it back in the Eighties, despite having been used in the past by someone else. Similarly, Mosrite of California Guitars (a Japanese company, making all its guitars in Japan) bears no relationship whatever to Semi Moseley's original outfit. Marks can lose their protection by "dilution" - essentially where the mark becomes such a common usage for all items of that type that it is no longer something which can distinguish origin. This is a key reason why companies as diverse as Aero, Fender Instruments and Google (in their opposition to the use of "Googling" as a verb) are ready to go to law to protect their use of their marks. (That said, it seems to take a lot to reach the level of dilution, but it has happened in the past - in the USA, examples include YoYo, Zipper, and Aspirin). There are a few other kinks and quirks in the regime, but that's the thrust of how it works. There has certainly been an academic debate in the past as to whether it is "fair" to allow a company to adopt a name from the past like this, which certainly is something that would have a big impact in the sort of niche market we favour. Personally, I don't have a problem with it as long as the mark isn't being used in bad faith - e.g. say NohDee Cars go out of business, then in ten years time I come along and sell a reproduction claiming to be the same company... that'd be bang out of order.
Anyhow, sorry to digress (though I don't think Plumbline specifically forbade a discussion on TM law, so it should be okay? ).
fits very nice! man, the bison looks delicious! i always love bison, much like I love deerskin and the Kudu
got your thinking? as in, worried? whats' wrong