I'll defer to Alex's judgement on this, but yes, that's my thinking as well. Imran Ghory wrote:

Nikola Smolenski wrote: Yes, Wikipedia is a trademark, and soon to be a registered trademark. It is *not* a generic term. It is a completely invented term. --Jimbo

Nikola Smolenski wrote: The claim that "Wikipedia" is a generic term presupposes that others have used it before. Please name some. Ec

On Wednesday 15 October 2003 22:08, Jake Nelson wrote: It just seems as obvious abbreviation to me.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote: Technically, not necessarily. If you came first but other people came after, used the name without your permission, and you didn't protest, THEN it's also a generic. I don't think either applies here. -Matt

This discussion should probably be taken over to the new legal discussion list wikilegal-l(a)wikipedia.org so I am cross posting my response there. It is generally true that words are not protected under trade mark law, but fanciful concatenation of words parts are "pedia" is not a word, and some might say that neither is "wiki" (though it probably has an emerging meaning when combined with software as in wiki software). Use of generic words in a TM is also allowable, thus Midas Muffler is a trademark because combined together Midas (name of a god) and Muffler have a fanciful meaning that identifies a company, product, good or service. There are many examples of TMs being created by combination of words. It is true that a word can become so associated with a particular thing that its use may become generic, this happened with xerox when the term xerox entered the language to mean a copy. It was also once true for Singer which had meant "sewing machine" at one time (no longer true) as in "I am going to fix your torn skirt on my singer." This can only happen with widespread usage of the term that becomes uncontrollably commonplace. This is not happening for Wikipedia. The Russian folks stopped using the English Wikipedia name (now they have their own Russian name that sort of has a similar meaning, and that may also be protected by the Wikipedia TM). The only other use has been the term as discovered by LittleDan, that is currently under discussion, i.e. AstroWikipedia. Hopefully we can convince the people who are using Wikipedia that they desist using the name and adopt a different name or become formally associated with Wikipedia. (after we learn what their claim to the name might be). Alex756 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nikola Smolenski" <smolensk(a)eunet.yu> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] AstroWikipedia On Wednesday 15 October 2003 21:47, Ray Saintonge wrote: It doesn't, it only presupposes that it is obvious term for a certain kind of product. Probably noone used the term "cucumber jam" for a jam made of cucumbers, because such a jam does not exist, but if it would be made it could not be sold under name "Cucumber Jam" or "Cucumberjam" or "Jam of Cucumbers" etc. I, of course, agree with Jimbo that if coca-cola is not generic, so isn't Wikipedia... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l