"SOARING" possibly in legal jeoprady

[Bob Thompson]

A feature article in the Durango Herald newspaper (Durango, Colorado) =
this morning about a 5 star resort north of town, Tall Timber, really =
caught my attention. They now offer an "extreme sport" of Peter Pan- =
like zipping down through the trees hanging from a wire that they call =
"SOARING"... and they have their lawyers "busily filing for patents and =
the COPYRIGHT TO THE NAME, SOARING". If they get this copyright of the =
name of our sport of "soaring", the name of the SSA, the name of the =
ASA, the name of Turf Soaring, Arizona Soaring, Soaring magazine, etc. =
may well have to be liscensed from these folks. =20

I'd say this is something perhaps a batch of "soaring" lawyers would =
want to look into pronto. Any copyright or patent lawyers involved in =
soaring got any comments? After all, we DO live in a VERY litigeous =
society / country.

Bob Thompson
19

[COLIN LAMB]

Eric is right. You cannot protect a name already in common use.

As a matter of fact, common law gives protection to those who have prior
use. And, Soaring magazine would have copyright protection, anyway.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/04

[Nolaminar]

Could this mean that big birds could no longer soar?
Are we to be grounded and only allowed to glide.
What a terrible thing!
Something must be done.
GA

[R Barry]

(Nolaminar) wrote in message >...
> Could this mean that big birds could no longer soar?
> Are we to be grounded and only allowed to glide.
> What a terrible thing!
> Something must be done.
> GA

well I think I'll just go saoring today to spite them.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Bob Thompson > wrote in message >...
> A feature article in the Durango Herald newspaper (Durango, Colorado) =
> this morning about a 5 star resort north of town, Tall Timber, really =
> caught my attention. They now offer an "extreme sport" of Peter Pan- =
> like zipping down through the trees hanging from a wire that they call =
> "SOARING"... and they have their lawyers "busily filing for patents and =
> the COPYRIGHT TO THE NAME, SOARING". If they get this copyright of the =
> name of our sport of "soaring", the name of the SSA, the name of the =
> ASA, the name of Turf Soaring, Arizona Soaring, Soaring magazine, etc. =
> may well have to be liscensed from these folks. =20
>
> I'd say this is something perhaps a batch of "soaring" lawyers would =
> want to look into pronto. Any copyright or patent lawyers involved in =
> soaring got any comments? After all, we DO live in a VERY litigeous =
> society / country.
>

A single word such as 'soaring' is too short to be protected by
copyright. The editors of that newspaper certainly SHOULD have
been aware of that.

They may be able to register "SOARING" (all caps) as a trademark
for their 'sport' but that won't give them rights to soaring any
more than hormel's trademark 'SPAM' carries over to email spam.

--

FF

[Quietpilot]

Let me see if I have this right..

Some rich person in an exclusive, gated playground community is going to PAY to
be suspended from a wire for the purpose of hurtling downhill some number of
feet above the ground?

Forget SOARING.. they should call their
"sport" EXTREME IDIOCY instead. Two words, easier to copyright.

If patrons are that easily parted from their money maybe we should open a
franchise selling them Pixie dust to sprinkle on the teeming masses below. Or
would Disney sue us for emulating Tinkerbelle too closely?

MG
San Diego :-)

[Clint]

>
> A single word such as 'soaring' is too short to be protected by
> copyright. The editors of that newspaper certainly SHOULD have
> been aware of that.
>
> They may be able to register "SOARING" (all caps) as a trademark
> for their 'sport' but that won't give them rights to soaring any
> more than hormel's trademark 'SPAM' carries over to email spam.

Rooibos (redbush) is a form of tea grown in South Africa for many
years. It is an Afrikaans word but is accepted in the English language
as well as there is no other English word for the drink. It is very
popular in South Africa (you battle to get a decent cup of regular tea
at a typical Afrikaans household) and is sold locally by many
producers. Some person has however copyrighted the word in America and
is now the only person allowed to market rooibos in America under that
name. No South African thought such a move was possible as it is like
copyrighting the word coffee and then forcing everybody else who sells
coffee to sell it under another name. It is amazing what can be pushed
through the American legal system. Rooibos and Soaring both have seven
letters so I don't think that there is anything that protects a single
word from becoming copyrighted.

Clinton
LAK 12

[Don Johnstone]

I don't think you are in real trouble. The word Hoover
is a trade mark and copyright but is used generically
to describe a sucking cleaning machine, The former
head of the FBI, and a large dam. The word Ford could
be even worse, again a trademark and copyright and
applies to a rubbish vehicle, a former president (Gerald,
only a brit would remember him), an actor (Harrison)
and a way of crossing a river, which brings us to Bush,
a trade mark over here for electrical items but also
shrubbery, two presidents and something I cannot mention
in polite company but is certainly related in many
ways to the aforesaid two presidents.
I think SOARING is safe even in the land of the rampant
litigators.
:-)



At 09:06 27 September 2004, Clint wrote:
>>
>> A single word such as 'soaring' is too short to be
>>protected by
>> copyright. The editors of that newspaper certainly
>>SHOULD have
>> been aware of that.
>>
>> They may be able to register 'SOARING' (all caps)
>>as a trademark
>> for their 'sport' but that won't give them rights
>>to soaring any
>> more than hormel's trademark 'SPAM' carries over to
>>email spam.
>
>Rooibos (redbush) is a form of tea grown in South Africa
>for many
>years. It is an Afrikaans word but is accepted in the
>English language
>as well as there is no other English word for the drink.
>It is very
>popular in South Africa (you battle to get a decent
>cup of regular tea
>at a typical Afrikaans household) and is sold locally
>by many
>producers. Some person has however copyrighted the
>word in America and
>is now the only person allowed to market rooibos in
>America under that
>name. No South African thought such a move was possible
>as it is like
>copyrighting the word coffee and then forcing everybody
>else who sells
>coffee to sell it under another name. It is amazing
>what can be pushed
>through the American legal system. Rooibos and Soaring
>both have seven
>letters so I don't think that there is anything that
>protects a single
>word from becoming copyrighted.
>
>Clinton
>LAK 12
>

[Brian]

"You can't copyright a word in general use, and you certainly can't
patent it. No problem here. You might be able to prevent it's use for
other, very similar, purposes; e.g., another magazine couldn't call
itself Soaring if it was about soaring sailplanes, instead of, say,
Peter Pan fantasies."

Yes, but recently a patent was issued for the peanutbutter and jelly
sandwich. I suppose now each day a mom or dad makes one for their kid's
lunch they will have to pay a royalty.

Brian

[[email protected]]

Brian wrote:

> Yes, but recently a patent was issued for the peanutbutter and jelly
> sandwich. I suppose now each day a mom or dad makes one for their kid's
> lunch they will have to pay a royalty.
>
> Brian
I recall that the PB&J patent was for a particular structure that
allowed the sandwich to be manufactured, packaged, and sold. The trick
was a technology to keep the jelly from soaking into the bread.

The funnier one to me was some years ago when someone made a new peanut
butter that contained only 100% peanuts--no additives, no hydrogenated
oil, stiffeners, etc. He was sued--successfully as I recall, because
"peanut butter" had these other things in them. His 100% peanuts only
spread had to be called "artificial" or some such because it wasn't
similar to the regular stuff. There is some logic to that, but it is
somewhat convoluted.

[SMASHING PENIS]

AMERICAN SEPP NAZIS BANNING AND LAWYERS COUNTRY GOING TO HELL TOW
PLANES THAT COST 30K TO BUILD BEING SOLD FOR $200K BECAUSE OF LIABILITY
OH GOD PLEASE NUKE US CHINA WE PRAY TO YOUR WALMART CRAP OUTSOURCE US
TO INDIA

[Bruce Hoult]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> The funnier one to me was some years ago when someone made a new peanut
> butter that contained only 100% peanuts--no additives, no hydrogenated
> oil, stiffeners, etc. He was sued--successfully as I recall, because
> "peanut butter" had these other things in them. His 100% peanuts only
> spread had to be called "artificial" or some such because it wasn't
> similar to the regular stuff. There is some logic to that, but it is
> somewhat convoluted.

Peanut Butter here in NZ has never had anything in it but peanuts, salt,
and *maybe* a little peanut oil.

I can not *stand* the stuff in the USA. It has SUGAR in it. Ick!

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Mal]

Simple call it Gliding

[Wayne Paul]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
> Peanut Butter here in NZ has never had anything in it but peanuts, salt,
> and *maybe* a little peanut oil.
>
> I can not *stand* the stuff in the USA. It has SUGAR in it. Ick!
>

Bruce,

I live in the USA and completely agree with your assessment of the popular
brands of our Peanut Butter. However, there is at least one brand, Adams,
which isn't sweetened. The only brand that we will buy.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Tony Verhulst]

> I can not *stand* the stuff in the USA. It has SUGAR in it. Ick!

When I was growing up in Holland (this was a while ago, mind you), some
canned goods were lableled "formulated for the American taste" and was
very sweet and salty to my taste. When my family emigrated to the US, I
understood.

Ton Verhulst

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Brian wrote:
>
>> Yes, but recently a patent was issued for the peanutbutter and jelly
>> sandwich. I suppose now each day a mom or dad makes one for their kid's
>> lunch they will have to pay a royalty.
>>
>> Brian
> I recall that the PB&J patent was for a particular structure that
> allowed the sandwich to be manufactured, packaged, and sold. The trick
> was a technology to keep the jelly from soaking into the bread.

Put peanut butter on both pieces of bread, Duuuhhhhhh.
I've done that since I was a kid packing a lunch. And that was a long time
ago.
Does that qualify as prior art?

:-)

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Shawn]

Wayne Paul wrote:
> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article . com>,
>> wrote:
>>
>>Peanut Butter here in NZ has never had anything in it but peanuts, salt,
>>and *maybe* a little peanut oil.
>>
>>I can not *stand* the stuff in the USA. It has SUGAR in it. Ick!
>>
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> I live in the USA and completely agree with your assessment of the popular
> brands of our Peanut Butter. However, there is at least one brand, Adams,
> which isn't sweetened. The only brand that we will buy.

Ditto Adam's brand. Costco sells a brand called Maranatha that's good
too.. Grew up on that processed sweetened crap. Can't stand it now.
To get back on subject. PB&J (or honey) is my fave. on long flights.
Just gotta coat both pieces of bread with peanut butter, and go light on
the jelly or honey, lest your hand sticks to the flap handle and you're
forced to land gear-up ;-)

Shawn

[Nyal Williams]

Re: an upstream comment.

It is the 'butter' part that makes it copyrightable;
it is a recipe. The crushed, ground, unaltered stuff
should be called 'Peanut Paste.'

At 04:06 05 February 2006, Shawn wrote:
>Wayne Paul wrote:
>> 'Bruce Hoult' wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>In article ,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Peanut Butter here in NZ has never had anything in
>>>it but peanuts, salt,
>>>and *maybe* a little peanut oil.
>>>
>>>I can not *stand* the stuff in the USA. It has SUGAR
>>>in it. Ick!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> I live in the USA and completely agree with your assessment
>>of the popular
>> brands of our Peanut Butter. However, there is at
>>least one brand, Adams,
>> which isn't sweetened. The only brand that we will
>>buy.
>
>Ditto Adam's brand. Costco sells a brand called Maranatha
>that's good
>too.. Grew up on that processed sweetened crap. Can't
>stand it now.
>To get back on subject. PB&J (or honey) is my fave.
>on long flights.
>Just gotta coat both pieces of bread with peanut butter,
>and go light on
>the jelly or honey, lest your hand sticks to the flap
>handle and you're
>forced to land gear-up ;-)
>
>Shawn
>

[Wayne Paul]

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Re: an upstream comment.
>
> It is the 'butter' part that makes it copyrightable;
> it is a recipe. The crushed, ground, unaltered stuff
> should be called 'Peanut Paste.'
>

I thought it was the oil/fat that defined it as "butter"? The creamery
doesn't add sugar when they produce "butter". Just a little salt. So why
should sugar have to be added to peanuts to make peanut butter?