Miggles

Are you sure about this? Aren't trademark symbols to be used and asserted by the trademark owner?

Often1

Please read what I wrote. There is not a remote suggestion that there is any such "rule". I said that any "marginally sane legal department....." There is a distinction and I made it for a reason. These are business-to-business transactions between businesses which all are trademark holders themselves.

TA

The question is whether UA needs to plaster those (R) registered trademark symbols all over the document. This has nothing to do with copyright.

The document in question is not itself a document for sale. It is not even involved in the selling of goods because it's a listing of what is about to be served for free in an airplane. The question is whether UA needs to so aggressively put (R) symbols all over it, or are covering their asses or something.

Even if there were some legal question, you can quickly find online that there are recommendations that you do not need to repeatedly put the (R) symbol where it has been mentioned / shown once already. Companies owning the trademark need not even put the mark if they don't want to.

By your logic (which I have no idea what point you're debating), every newspaper business article mention of anyone's brands would need to be plastered with (R) symbols.

ExplorerWannabe

Not sure I understand your reasoning. I'm aware of "Fair Use" as a doctrine applying to copyrights but don't see how that applies when citing a vendor's product in a menu. In the menu, United is citing another vendor's product so I think are required to note when they are using said vendor's trademarked phrases or labels if the vendor requests it. Perhaps there's an IP attorney on this board who could clarify?
Regardless, this is a really petty matter to be griping about.

Collierkr

Wow you guys must be bored today. Why are we talking about this?

dilanesp

I mean, legal departments are really cautious, which is fine, but it is totally sane to advise United that there is no infringement if you don't use the symbols. It is black letter law that descriptive uses of trademarks are fair.

https://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics...demarksNL.aspx

And yeah, I've litigated trademark cases. They come up in my area of practice. I have even asserted a fair use defense in them before.

JVPhoto

Too bad that “Least Substantial” thread is closed. This is something I may notice if my IFE and phone were dead on SFO-SIN and to pass the time I decided to count the number of letters on the menu.

TA

I'm pretty sure the bulk majority of threads in UA forum, or many other of the FT airline forums for that matter, could be considered "the least substantive thing" when viewed by someone outside from an objective point of view.

Lack of wine in business class? Flight delayed by 2 hours? Upgrade didn't clear?

Everyone has their thing they might want to shoot the bs about. So just let people entertain themselves as long as it's reasonably airline-related. Sometimes, the argument is the fun part of the journey...

KDS777

What on earth is Canadian Club whisky doing on a premium liquor list ??

FWIW here in Canada we consider this to be nothing more than sewage water, usually served from a paper bag in a back alley. Absolute low grade rot gut.

FLYMSY

TA

You can tell it's premium because the wine selections are Red AND White!

fumje

In the US anything foreign is premium. Or suspect.

AlwaysFlyStar

Surely you mean Canadian Club® Whisky.

KDS777

LOL.......I don't know how to make the trademark symbol on my computer.

planko

Copy and paste it from another post.