A report back from Labadee, Haiti port call

[Default] Thus spake "John Sisker" :

"Dillon Pyron" wrote in message
.. .
A letter from Adam Goldstein explains why they returned and has the
following excerpt:

All of our ships calling into Labadee® are transporting much needed
supplies to Haiti, amounting to over 120 pallets in the first week
alone and more is on the way. Our lounge chairs have even become
useful as makeshift hospital beds to help treat the injured. Royal
Caribbean® has pledged at least $2 million in humanitarian relief
including 100% of the net revenue generated during calls to Labadee®.
Additionally, guests onboard our ships will have the ability to donate
to Food for the Poor's Haiti Relief Fund through their onboard
accounts if they elect to do so. In response to numerous suggestions
regarding guest participation in the recovery efforts, volunteers on
some ships calling into Labadee® can join us in assembling backpacks
for kids which we will be donating to the local community.




The very letter you refer to from Adam Goldstein was circulated via this
newsgroup on 1/25/2010 at 8:06 PM called... "A letter from Adam Goldstein re
Haiti Relief Effort."


Perhaps. My letter is dated the 25th. I'll plead nolo contendre on
this one.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

[Default] Thus spake "John Sisker" :

"Charles" wrote in message
id...
In article , Dillon Pyron
wrote:

A letter from Adam Goldstein explains why they returned and has the
following excerpt:

I received that letter in e-mail. I thought it was nicely written and a
good idea they sent it to their customers.

I did get a chuckle that after Royal Caribbean and Labadee they put
the ® symbol.

--
Charles




Interesting point, something admittedly I didn't pay that much attention to.
Yet, even though I originally received this letter from Adam Goldstein via
e-mail, it too contains the ® symbols. Maybe, I don't pay that much
attention to this type of thing anymore, for it has become so second nature
with me, that it is simply a rule of thumb. The ® symbol is no-doubt a legal
requirement in connection to their company name. It is with my mine, for my
agency name of Ship-To-Shore Cruise Agency® is a federal registered
trademark, and every time I refer to it in writing, the ® symbol is
required.


As an IP owner, this is correct. One must properly identify and mark
copyright and trademark items to protect them. And vigorouls protect
that. Kleenex vs kleenex. Xerox vs xerox.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

Kleenex(R) brand tissues and Xerox(R) brand copying machines are still
protected and have not become victims of "genericide." In fact, both
are used as law school examples of trademarks their owners have fought
hard to keep, including via ad campaigns not primarily designed to
sell product, but aimed at emphasizing their protected legal status. I
can't quickly find a better reference to the Kleenex campaign than
this blog, http://tinyurl.com/yj3g3yu but you may recall the Xerox
campaign--"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox. But we don't mind at
all if you copy a copy on a Xerox® copier."

I remember being taught to think of trademarks in grammatical terms.
If you treat a trademark as an adjective, then you get it. Read the
Xerox ad again--in almost Superman-like fashion (no mistake, I'm
sure), it beautifully conveys, "It's not a noun...it's not a
verb...it's an adjective!"

Thus, to bring this OT, "Labadee(R) brand resort" instead of Labadee, a noun for a place.

If you Google "Labadee" (oops! Google's IP lawyers are not happy about
their trademark being used as a verb--I'm supposed to say, If you
perform a Google(R) brand search of "Labadee") you will learn more
about the place. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labadee

Obviously, this presents a classic "sales, meet legal" scenario...it's
a good problem to have when a trademarked product attains "generic"
usage.

Diana Ball
Austin, TX

"D Ball" wrote in message
...
Kleenex(R) brand tissues and Xerox(R) brand copying machines are still
protected and have not become victims of "genericide." In fact, both
are used as law school examples of trademarks their owners have fought
hard to keep, including via ad campaigns not primarily designed to
sell product, but aimed at emphasizing their protected legal status. I
can't quickly find a better reference to the Kleenex campaign than
this blog, http://tinyurl.com/yj3g3yu but you may recall the Xerox
campaign--"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox. But we don't mind at
all if you copy a copy on a Xerox® copier."

I remember being taught to think of trademarks in grammatical terms.
If you treat a trademark as an adjective, then you get it. Read the
Xerox ad again--in almost Superman-like fashion (no mistake, I'm
sure), it beautifully conveys, "It's not a noun...it's not a
verb...it's an adjective!"

Thus, to bring this OT, "Labadee(R) brand resort" instead of Labadee, a
noun for a place.

If you Google "Labadee" (oops! Google's IP lawyers are not happy about
their trademark being used as a verb--I'm supposed to say, If you
perform a Google(R) brand search of "Labadee") you will learn more
about the place. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labadee

Obviously, this presents a classic "sales, meet legal" scenario...it's
a good problem to have when a trademarked product attains "generic"
usage.

Diana Ball
Austin, TX

Hi Diana,

My aging memory tells me that Kleenex worked around the problem by naming
several other products Kleenex, things like paper napkins. N'est pas?

Harry Cooper

In article ,
"Seehorse Video" wrote:

can't quickly find a better reference to the Kleenex campaign than
this blog, http://tinyurl.com/yj3g3yu but you may recall the Xerox
campaign--"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox. But we don't mind at
all if you copy a copy on a Xerox® copier."

When I was but a cub reporter, Xerox ran monthly ads in Editor &
Publisher reminding us all that Xerox was spelled with two r's.. the
other of course being registration mark.



My aging memory tells me that Kleenex worked around the problem by naming
several other products Kleenex, things like paper napkins. N'est pas?

Yeah they did. Although IIRC that was more to leverage the name and
extend the line than for any legal reason.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

Seehorse Video consulted a Magic 8 Ball and declared On 2/5/2010 3:21 PM:
"D wrote in message
...
Kleenex(R) brand tissues and Xerox(R) brand copying machines are still
protected and have not become victims of "genericide." In fact, both
are used as law school examples of trademarks their owners have fought
hard to keep, including via ad campaigns not primarily designed to
sell product, but aimed at emphasizing their protected legal status. I
can't quickly find a better reference to the Kleenex campaign than
this blog, http://tinyurl.com/yj3g3yu but you may recall the Xerox
campaign--"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox. But we don't mind at
all if you copy a copy on a Xerox® copier."

I remember being taught to think of trademarks in grammatical terms.
If you treat a trademark as an adjective, then you get it. Read the
Xerox ad again--in almost Superman-like fashion (no mistake, I'm
sure), it beautifully conveys, "It's not a noun...it's not a
verb...it's an adjective!"


Thus, to bring this OT, "Labadee(R) brand resort" instead of Labadee, a
noun for a place.

If you Google "Labadee" (oops! Google's IP lawyers are not happy about
their trademark being used as a verb--I'm supposed to say, If you
perform a Google(R) brand search of "Labadee") you will learn more
about the place. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labadee

Obviously, this presents a classic "sales, meet legal" scenario...it's
a good problem to have when a trademarked product attains "generic"
usage.

Diana Ball
Austin, TX

Hi Diana,

My aging memory tells me that Kleenex worked around the problem by naming
several other products Kleenex, things like paper napkins. N'est pas?

Harry Cooper



N'est pas? No, I'll have the coco.

--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"The poor dog is the firmest of friends, the first to welcome the foremost to defend" - Lord Byron

View My Web Pages: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951
My Shutterfly Page http://photosbybrianmk.shutterfly.com/

Kurt Ullman consulted a Magic 8 Ball and declared On 2/5/2010 3:30 PM:
In articlevMedndWuY8tI4PHWnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews. com,
"Seehorse wrote:


can't quickly find a better reference to the Kleenex campaign than
this blog, http://tinyurl.com/yj3g3yu but you may recall the Xerox
campaign--"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox. But we don't mind at
all if you copy a copy on a Xerox® copier."

When I was but a cub reporter, Xerox ran monthly ads in Editor&
Publisher reminding us all that Xerox was spelled with two r's.. the
other of course being registration mark.



My aging memory tells me that Kleenex worked around the problem by naming
several other products Kleenex, things like paper napkins. N'est pas?


Yeah they did. Although IIRC that was more to leverage the name and
extend the line than for any legal reason.


I guess I'll just have to google how to xerrox a Scotts kleenex while
reading a fax in my jacuzzi. :-D

--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"The poor dog is the firmest of friends, the first to welcome the foremost to defend" - Lord Byron

View My Web Pages: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951
My Shutterfly Page http://photosbybrianmk.shutterfly.com/

[Default] Thus spake D Ball :

Kleenex(R) brand tissues and Xerox(R) brand copying machines are still
protected and have not become victims of "genericide." In fact, both
are used as law school examples of trademarks their owners have fought
hard to keep, including via ad campaigns not primarily designed to
sell product, but aimed at emphasizing their protected legal status. I
can't quickly find a better reference to the Kleenex campaign than
this blog, http://tinyurl.com/yj3g3yu but you may recall the Xerox
campaign--"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox. But we don't mind at
all if you copy a copy on a Xerox® copier."

Yeah, that's what I meant. No such thing as a kleenex, but there is
Kleenex brand facial tissues. And a Xerox photocopier (which uses
xerography, or at least used to, long before laser printers).


I remember being taught to think of trademarks in grammatical terms.
If you treat a trademark as an adjective, then you get it. Read the
Xerox ad again--in almost Superman-like fashion (no mistake, I'm
sure), it beautifully conveys, "It's not a noun...it's not a
verb...it's an adjective!"

There's Xerox, the company, which is a noun. There's Xerox the brand,
which is an adjective. But there's no xerox the thing, which would be
a noun but isn't because it doesn't exist. And xerox the verb, which
isn't ...


Thus, to bring this OT, "Labadee(R) brand resort" instead of Labadee, a noun for a place.

If you Google "Labadee" (oops! Google's IP lawyers are not happy about
their trademark being used as a verb--I'm supposed to say, If you
perform a Google(R) brand search of "Labadee") you will learn more
about the place. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labadee

Obviously, this presents a classic "sales, meet legal" scenario...it's
a good problem to have when a trademarked product attains "generic"
usage.

Yeah, but IBM hated it when people started calling computers "IBM
machines". And they still hate it when they hear people referring to
PCs as "IBM compatible". Heck, IBM hasn't made an "IBM compatible" PC
in quite a while.


Diana Ball
Austin, TX
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

[Default] Thus spake Kurt Ullman :

In article ,
"Seehorse Video" wrote:

can't quickly find a better reference to the Kleenex campaign than
this blog, http://tinyurl.com/yj3g3yu but you may recall the Xerox
campaign--"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox. But we don't mind at
all if you copy a copy on a Xerox® copier."

When I was but a cub reporter, Xerox ran monthly ads in Editor &
Publisher reminding us all that Xerox was spelled with two r's.. the
other of course being registration mark.



My aging memory tells me that Kleenex worked around the problem by naming
several other products Kleenex, things like paper napkins. N'est pas?

Yeah they did. Although IIRC that was more to leverage the name and
extend the line than for any legal reason.

They didn't "name" other products, it's a brand name, not a product
name. Kleenex brand napkins, Kleenex brand facial tissues, Kleenex
brand ...


About 10 years ago Harley (oops, Harley-Davidson) tried to trademark
the V-twin sound. Can't do that, TPO said, it's an artifact of a
mechanical device. It also appears that you can't copyright a song of
less than four distinct notes or chords. NBC has fought some cases
regarding trademark infringement over its three tones, but those were
mostly along the lines of misrepresentation rather than any specific
trademark. You can't trademark a song.

Oh yeah, nobody "owns" the name Elivs Presely. But his likeness is
owned by his estate. And they sometimes come down pretty hard on
Elvis impresonators. But, oddly enough, if you call yourself an Elvis
tribute artist and somewhere in your literature or presenation
acknowledge that the image is owned by Graceland and used by
permission, that's all the permission you need.

You know that pork is "the other white meat." But boy did the
American Pork Producers get ****y when the New England Lobsterman's
Association came out with "the better white meat." And, of course,
lost.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.