 |
Links: Tales of Trademark Abuse: McDonald's Goes After the Dictionary? |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
McDonald's is upset about the appearance of "McJob" in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, where it is defined as "low paying and dead-end work."
In an open letter to Merriam-Webster, McDonald’s CEO Jim Cantalupo said the term is "an inaccurate description of restaurant employment" and "a slap in the face to the 12 million men and women" who work in the restaurant industry.
What caught my eye in the story was the following passage:
Walt Riker, a spokesman for McDonald’s, said the Oak Brook, Ill.-based fast-food giant also is concerned that "McJob" closely resembles McJOBS, the company’s training program for mentally and physically challenged people.
"McJOBS is trademarked and we’ve notified them that legally that’s an issue for us as well," Riker said.
Catch that? McDonald's wants to censor the dictionary in order to protect their brand, and they'll use trademarks to do it. This is just another manifestation of the malginant theory that once you have a trademark, you ought to be able to stop people from using the word at stake if you don't like the way they're using it. Going after the dictionary is voodoo linguistics: if "McJob" isn't in there, maybe people won't use it.
If McDonald's has its way here, it'll be another nail in the coffin of the eminently sensible idea that dictionaries ought to reflect the way people actually use language. Then again, modern trademark law is anything but sensible.
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Tales of Trademark Abuse: McDonald's Goes After the Dictionary? (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 @ 15:34:28 EST | In an open letter to Merriam-Webster, McDonald's CEO Jim Cantalupo said the term is "an inaccurate description of restaurant employment" and "a slap in the face to the 12 million men and women" who work in the restaurant industry.
What would McDonald's knwo about the restaurant employment. Are they under the delusion that McDonald's are actually restaurants? Eatery perhaps, restaurant no way.
|
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
But they may have a point (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Saturday, November 08 @ 23:09:29 EST | Isn't this trademark dilution? The trademark shouldn't be used in a way which makes it more generic. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Tales of Trademark Abuse: McDonald's Goes After the Dictionary? (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 @ 08:59:32 EST | As an earlier poster mentioned in passing, I think this news bite goes more towards genericism than dilution (or any other Trademark claim). By requesting that Webster remove the term, McDonalds is policing usage of the mark, not unlike a covert Pepsi representative going into a Taco Bell and asking for a Coke or a covert Xerox rep. asking for a Xerox. In IP class, we learned that such policing is not only helpful in protecting a mark from genericide but also appropriate.
I don't blame McDonalds for trying to prevent broad usage of 'McJob.' Rather I'm curious why Webster would even think to include it in the dictionary. And if McJob, why not also McBLT or some other McX?
I also can't help but remember an old 'Bloom County' cartoon where Opus the Penguin goes into a McDonalds because he had a dream of Ronald McDonald chasing him with an axe and singing:
McPenguin Burgers, Extra Lettuce!
Special orders don't upset us!
(And when he did ask the McDonalds cashier, the cashier answered: "McNope but mcmaybe. Come back Mclater!") |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|