
Who owns Route 66? (2010) - GigabyteCoin
http://shoestringtheory.com/2010/04/21/who-owns-route-66/
======
nmc
_" It’s simply unfathomable to me that this trademark can stand as legally
binding. The fact that it’s held by a European company is just insulting on
top of that."_

Unnecessary acrimonious statement. Is it because it is a non-US company, or
specifically a European company?

I believe French people could feel similarly insulted by California _"
champagne"_⁰.

0:
[http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/1256](http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/1256)

* * *

EDIT:

Thanks for the replies. I agree California champagne is a poorly chosen
example.

I understand the outrage about a Dutch company claiming ownership of the image
of Route 66, but it just feels like _" insulting"_ is too strong a word.

~~~
dnautics
The claim that champagne refers to bubbling wines in general and cannot be
owned, is (not perfectly, but quite) the opposite of the idea that a general
and public concept (route 66) is ownable by an entity.

~~~
paradoja
There are other bubbling wines that are not called "champagne".

------
Animats
There are about 30 different US trademarks for "Route 66", in different
categories - beer, tobacco, etc. Tempting Brands owns many categories. The
question is whether they have products in them.

You can register a US trademark with an "intent to use" it, but normally you
have to submit a statement of use with an image of the trademark being used on
some product within six months. Here, though, Tempting Brands filed in another
country first, which gives them a pass on that initial requirement.

Between 5 and 6 years after initial registration, though, the trademark owner,
even if non-US, must submit a statement with an image of the trademark being
used on some product to the USPTO. Some of their trademarks, such as
#79975044, just passed that point. There's a six month grace period after year
6 during which renewal is still possible with a double fee ($100 per class
registered), and that's now timing out.

------
blahedo
Anyone know what ever happened with this?

~~~
strathmeyer
[http://www.temptingbrands.com/ROUTE_66.html](http://www.temptingbrands.com/ROUTE_66.html)

------
cafard
Route 66 no longer exists as such. How about Franklin and Marshall?

------
beedogs
Trademark law may actually be stupider and more convoluted than even
copyright.

~~~
dnautics
As someone quite opposed to copyright and patents, I'd say there is an
argument for trademark; the use of trademarks is weakly rivalrous - if I start
using it, it can potentially occlude your ability to use it. For example, I
start an Acme widget company, and you also make widgets branded Acme, of a
poorer quality than my widgets. The strength of the rivalrousness depends on
factors, such as locality of operation, domain of operation, and it is on
that, rational, basis that trademarks are managed - you have to show you're
using the trademark, you have to show that you are defending it, and you only
get a regional trademark where you are actively operating and in the domain
that you're operating. Five guys hamburgers can't (easily) stop Five guys auto
mechanics.

On the other hand, there are people badass enough to not bother trademarking
(David Tran doesn't trademark Sriracha)

