Does anyone else find the trademarks on United menus super tacky?
 

Relevant pic attached. This feels super tacky to me and totally ruins any sort of premium feel for menus especially in business or first. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...a5b114e02e.png

No.

I'd rather not see them as they're distracting, not tacky per se. I wonder if they're legally required?

The ONLY requirement , as you can see, is for the wine!!! :D

Other carriers seem to get by without having to include a single trademark character:

https://www.ana.co.jp/int/inflight/g...f_201803_d.pdf

I think it's pretty clear when something is a brand name.

Don't try to compare a U.S. carrier with a foreign carrier. Every country has different trademark and copyright requirements.

This is on the menu of my just-completed trip on AA (HND-LAX):
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...b4725ab0ac.jpg

Granted, it isn't as zealous as UA appears to be with the ® and ™, but speaking for myself, they neither ruin the "premium" feel nor enhance it. I'd rather judge my premium experience by how my seat folds out flat when I want to sleep on it.

So, it appears that both United® and American® put trademark symbols on their menus. Any word on Delta®?

I find it interesting that the presence of a few ®s on the menu "totally ruins" it for the OP; it takes two or more extraneous commas to ruin it for me.

I find it tacky also but perhaps for a different reason. For me, the whole dinner service is tacky - bigging it up to sound smart when what you get is quite the opposite. It reminds me of one of those old “grand” restaurants with linen tablecloths and hundreds of waiters milling around in their white jackets - except the tablecloths and jackets ceased being fully white twenty years previously.

Here you go.......


http://alcademics.typepad.com/.a/6a0...e0d5970b-580wi

What's that thread about "what's the smallest thing you can complain about"? Or is that in a different forum?

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.

Well, you had a menu and it wasn't on one sheet of copy paper. I don't care about trademarks because at least they have to deliver what they list that way.

Indeed, I can live with a few TMs, much bigger fish to fry at this airline ......

So, a foreign carrier operating in the US doesn't have to abide by US laws when in the US (if they apply in this case)?

By that logic, why doesn't UA strip out the trademark symbols because they fly to Japan?