Does anyone else find the trademarks on United menus super tacky?
#16
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,296
#17
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Raddison Platinum, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 5,258
I think it would be more tacky if there was no menu or the menu was printed on tissue paper or if you asked for something on the menu and they told you they didnt have it. I do think its tacky that you have to look in the menu to know that you can get a gel pillow, mattress pad, pajamas and the FA's don't proactively offer.
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Consider that nobody thought it was significant that Marriott referred to Taiwan under a list of "countries" where it does business until China made it an issue. Same thing here. Perhaps some distributor raised it as an issue to one US carrier and they all then agreed to do it to keep the peace.
Bear in mind that there is a mutual benefit and distributors either provide or provide at a discount in order to have their product served because it's a good way to expand its market.
#19
#20
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 674
The choice for a US carrier is simple. If the carrier simply lists "rum" or "Woodford Bourbon" there is no reason to acknowledge the TM. But, if the menu lists "Woodford Reserve Kentucky Straight Borbon Whiskey" that is a TM and any marginally sane US business would acknowledge the TM. If you look at the DL menu above, you will see that DL does not TM the rum because it is simply Baccardi Rum, but it does TM the Woodfords.
If obeying US TM rules dating back 60+ years is tacky, OP is absolutely right to see it as tacky. But, it really should be moved to the thread suggested in #11 where it can be compared to the misfortunes of people deprived of BP's with a giold stripe and hot towels which lack sufficient thread count.
If obeying US TM rules dating back 60+ years is tacky, OP is absolutely right to see it as tacky. But, it really should be moved to the thread suggested in #11 where it can be compared to the misfortunes of people deprived of BP's with a giold stripe and hot towels which lack sufficient thread count.
I've certainly seen the trademark stuff on chain restaurant menus, but no fine dining establishment will have it.
I wonder if it's simply not enforced, or if the rule is that you must only follow it if your company exceeds X number of employees or revenue.
#21
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: BA Bronze, United 1K, HH Gold, SPG Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 3,477
Well, I have to say that I never look at the list of alcoholic beverages because I keep to Champagne, wine and Port. I wish they would list the Champagne on their wine list and have the wines listed available.
#22
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: LAS
Programs: 3 MMer
Posts: 458
#24
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
However, large trademark holders like United often are not fans of fair use doctrine and their legal departments often don't want them to avail themselves of it.
#25
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
The choice for a US carrier is simple. If the carrier simply lists "rum" or "Woodford Bourbon" there is no reason to acknowledge the TM. But, if the menu lists "Woodford Reserve Kentucky Straight Borbon Whiskey" that is a TM and any marginally sane US business would acknowledge the TM. If you look at the DL menu above, you will see that DL does not TM the rum because it is simply Baccardi Rum, but it does TM the Woodfords.
If obeying US TM rules dating back 60+ years is tacky, OP is absolutely right to see it as tacky. But, it really should be moved to the thread suggested in #11 where it can be compared to the misfortunes of people deprived of BP's with a giold stripe and hot towels which lack sufficient thread count.
If obeying US TM rules dating back 60+ years is tacky, OP is absolutely right to see it as tacky. But, it really should be moved to the thread suggested in #11 where it can be compared to the misfortunes of people deprived of BP's with a giold stripe and hot towels which lack sufficient thread count.
It is possible that the contract with the vendor requires the use though.
#26
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madison NJ; Watopia
Posts: 3,161
+1 for tacky (or goofy). United doesn't need to print the symbols unless they're party to some agreement that says so. So long as the copyright holders are ringing up sales, I'd estimate there's about a 0% litigation risk to United if they omit the symbols.
To me, it feels more like "No cheap well brands on our menu. We may be a U.S. carrier, but our booze is premium."
To me, it feels more like "No cheap well brands on our menu. We may be a U.S. carrier, but our booze is premium."
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,110
Anything published in Japan does not need to follow U.S. copyright rules, just as anything published in the U.S. does not need to follow Japanese copyright rules. (This assumes the documents in question aren't intended for sale in the other country.)
#29
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,166
The trademark symbols do make the menu appear cluttered but I expect United is just complying with the trademark owners' (e.g., Jack Daniels or Miller or Heineken) wishes. Really kind of a petty complaint IMO.