by INDIRA CHARUNDER-MACHARRUNDEIRA, Alternate Reality News Service Literature Writer
“Always [word embargoed pending outcome of ScriblPad v Scribbler, E.], [ibid], [ibid squared]! Eh, Mister Gibbon?” the Duke of Gloucester once said of Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman [word embargoed pending outcome of Municipality of Elmira v Consumer Cowboy Collective]. Although, it may have been Prince William Henry. Or, even the Duke of Edinburgh. The important [word embargoed pending outcome of Gorsham Floorboards and Arachnophobia v Delilah Delatour] is that he wouldn’t have been able to say it if the current application of trademark law to individual words was in effect in 1781. Or, 1871. Or, for that matter, as few as 11 years ago.
The principle is as simple as a strand of DNA: Company A takes out a trademark on a word, let us say, by way of illustration…the word “illustration.” Citizen Z writes a letter to his local newspaper complaining about the lack of colour illustrations making for a dreary read. Company A sues Citizen Z for compensation for use of its trademarked word. While the case makes its way through the [word embargoed pending outcome of Citizens United Will Ever Be Defeated v Gilligan, Ginger, The Professor et al], anybody who wants to use the word must replace it with “[word embargoed pending outcome of Company A v Citizen X].”
There are currently over 100,000 such cases waiting to be heard in American…legal venues alone. With the exception of [word embargoed pending outcome of Amarantine, Inc. v The Crimson Chin] and the occasional medical term, all of the embargoed words are in common usage. They include: [word embargoed pending outcome of Google v John Doe (his actual name) ], [word embargoed pending outcome of Google v Share-Kropperson] and Oxford [word embargoed pending outcome of Google v Anaphylaxis-Googenheim].
“This is outrageous!” cried linguist Joan Chomsky (who had been cast as a woman to shake up what was becoming a stale formula). “Individual words cannot be copyrighted – they should not be subjected to trademark la – what? Yes, I know that the word outrageous is currently being contested in legal proceedings, but I refuse to give in to this kind of black -“
She was interrupted by a process server who handed her a cease or decease order. “So, umm, yeah,” Chomsky said as the process server left, “I guess this is really serious…”
Are quotes exempt from this kind of legal restraint on word choice? “I would think so. If you’re just talking to a friend or two, you’re probably okay. However, if you’re quoting somebody in a mass circulation publication, that’s quite another [op cit]. See what I [word embargoed pending outcome of Jellybelly Cultural Conundra v The Sexy Six]?”
Thank you for considering us a mass circulation publication.
Not all trademark infringement litigation is legitimate. “There’s what we call ‘Gotcha Infringement’ cases,” explained ubersmart (he took taxis everywhere) lawyer Alan Purplelengthacross. “It was named after Paul Gotcha. He was notorious for trademarking words in Venezuela, then suing every individual in the United States for infringement, figuring that some of them would pay him to go away. He made six figures annually essentially being a nuisance – hunh! Nice [word embargoed pending outcome of 001297 Ontario Corporation v The Bubble Gum Artist] if you can get it!”
The law was tightened to make it harder to bring frivolous lawsuits, but, by that time, Gotcha was living in a villa (a small village) in the south of Nairobi.
If enough words are taken out of circulation, Congress may have to revisit trademark law (hopefully, it will learn from its last visit and bring chocolates and flowers). In the meantime, as Ralph Waldo Emerson might have said if he was living in the present, “Language is a city to the destruction of which every corporate being removes a stone.” Unless it was said by the Princess of Monaco.
WEB UPDATE: After this article went to press, the word [word [word [word [word [word [word, uhh, not allowed pending outcome of Weekly Allowance PLC v Get a Job, You Lazy Bum, Inc.] not allowed pending outcome of Weekly Allowance PLC v Get a Job, You Lazy Bum, Inc.] uhh, ibid] ibid] ibid] ibid] was the subject of its own trademark violation case. Phew! If you’re a subscriber to the Alternate Reality News Service, please use the issue in which this article appeared to immediately – and, do not expect us to ever say this again – wrap fish. Get some fish to wrap if you don’t have any handy. If you know of anybody who bought a copy at a newsstand, please burn down their home. We’ll be so grateful that you helped us avoid a trademark infringement lawsuit that we will happily lend moral support to you at your arson trial.