posted on May 2, 2001 05:55:47 AM
Ok, So is Rachel Ashwell the person who notified Vero?? Or can anyone notify them, I haven't paid much attention to trademarks as I sell antiques and collectibles.
I did not know the term Shabby Chic was a trademarked word either. Just thought of it as Retro, Art Deco. etc. etc.
posted on May 2, 2001 05:59:54 AM
There are 10992 search results for the phrase "Shabby Chic" on Altavista. Some of the links are to retailers and manufacturers using the term as a generic for the style of their products. Some of them are showing up as FEATURED sites!
And for a ROFL: http://www.babyparadise.com/glenna/shabby.html is using it as a brand name!
Even HGTV, where her show is, is using it as a generic in their articles, capitalizing it like you do any style name "They incorporate a Shabby Chic decorating scheme", using it for project titles "Shabby Chic Window Desk", using it in article titles "Shabby Chic or High-Tech?", using it with no caps as a generic "Jim likes sleek, unique high-tech furnishings while Janine prefers shabby chic, more traditional styling" in a story featuring Ethan Allen, etc. She should be sending cease and desist letters to THEM!
http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/budget_decorating/27028 "Although the term was made wildly popular by Rachel Ashwell's 1996 book, "Shabby Chic", some decorators say they remember the style (and even the name) from decades ago." Prior use as a common adjective or noun could invalidate the trademark.
Status: REGISTERED
Official PTO Status:
Section 8 & 15 Accepted and acknowledged
Register: Principal
Serial No: 74288792
Registration No: 1759914
(15 classifications of products registered)
1st Use: October 1989
Filing Date: June 25, 1992
Published Date: December 29, 1992
Registered Date: March 23, 1993
Here's the weak spot in her registration: She opened the first "Shabby Chic" store in 1989, and didn't attempt to register the term until 3 years later, and it's being used as a generic by writers worldwide.
Home and Garden magazines use the phrase without the (R) symbol in articles on home decorating, and if she has not been VIGOROUSLY defending her trademark by sending cease and desist letters to ALL OF THEM "Shabby Chic" is going to go the way of aspirin because is has slid into a generic term for junky decor.
I note that Bluefly (upscale online retailer of several lines, including Shabby Chic linens) does not even use the (R) symbol properly. And this is a "use it or lose it" kind of thing. Once the term becomes a generic (like the "x86" did for Intel's processors) you can't get the genie back in the bottle.
GOOD GRIEF! "alte Olivenkrüge aus dem Mittelmeerraum, alles auch im Stil des Shabby Chic." It's even snuck into German! And without the (R) symbol.
posted on May 2, 2001 09:40:50 AM
if i had coined a term that had sold me millions of widgets, I'd trademark it also. and I'd restrict its use because it DOES dilute the punch of the name to have 5000 dohickeys on Ebay all calling their krap 'shabby chic'. You're going to have to find another name for it. Shabby Chic applies only to Shabby Chic items just as Chanel applies to Chanel items and you can't call a Chanel-style purse 'Chanel' just because it looks like a Chanel.
and just because she does/did not end EVERY auction does not mean she is wrong to end ONE auction. do the police have to stop EVERY speeder in town just to make it legit for them to stop ONE speeder in town? Pullease!
Incidentally I've used the term myself occasionally, but now that I know it's actually a trademarked name, I won't anymore. i don't have the right to do that, plain and simple. I can't believe people are trying to justify their use of it (or other people's use of it!) by saying 'everyone does it'. Didn't yo mama's teach you better than that?
posted on May 2, 2001 10:01:43 AM
From an explanation of trademark law at http://home.earthlink.net/~ivanlove/trademark.html ...
Trademarks must be aggressively protected by the owner to keep them from falling into the public domain and the owner losing the protection of the mark. This means that if the owner fails to protect its mark and allows it to be used in unauthorized ways or in ways that may cause it to cease being identified in the mind of the public solely with the goods and services of the owner, the protection may be lost. This is because the trademark is based upon identification of the mark with a particular source and if the owner of the mark shows an indication that it does not care much about protecting that source identification, the mark may lose its value to that owner and the court may strip that owner of the protection the mark originally afforded.
Additionally, a mark may be lost if it becomes "generic." The classic example of the loss of such a mark and its becoming generic is the word "cellophane." When it was first coined, it identified a brand of that sort of wrapping paper. But it became so widely used to identify all forms of that wrapping paper that the courts determined that it had become generic for all such forms and ceased to be a valid mark. It was no longer associated in the mind of the public with a particular company making that paper. Another example might be "Xerox." It is a brand name, a trademark, that is used to identify a particular form of photocopying. To refer to making copies as "xeroxing" runs the risk of making the mark generic and would likely be aggressively protected.
In sum, owners of trademarks are not necessarily "evil" if they rigorously enforce their intellectual property. They must do so if they are to protect their commercial asset.
**********
The key is that the MUST do so, and they can't select which venues to do it in. If they let House and Garden use it unchallenged as a generic term and for H&G projects, and allow journalists to use it as a generic descripter for a kind of style, and not making them restrict it to the proper use (which would be ONLY for the items produced under that trademark), they are going to lose it real fast.
posted on May 2, 2001 10:21:03 AM
OH MY! Here's the list of things that they say they plan to produce ... accorting to http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76150876
Which is the USPTO server.
FABRICS, LINENS AND TEXTILES; FABRIC, LINEN AND TEXTILE PIECE GOODS; FABRICS, LINENS AND TEXTILES FOR BEDDING, BATHWARE, FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS, HOUSEHOLD GOODS, WINDOW TREATMENTS AND CLOTHING; BED SPREADS; BED SHEETS; FITTED BED SHEETS; FLAT BED SHEETS; POPLIN AND T-SHIRT BED SHEETS; BED BLANKETS; RECEIVING BLANKETS; BED CANOPIES; DUVETS; DUVET COVERS; BED PADS; BEDDING LINEN; DUST RUFFLES; PILLOW CASES; PILLOW SHAMS; DECORATIVE FABRIC PILLOWS; POTATOSACK PILLOW CASES; PILLOW CASES WITH RUFFLES; PILLOW SHAMS WITH RUFFLES; BOUDOIR PILLOWS; RUFFLED BEDSKIRTS; BEDSKIRTS; COMFORTERS; TEXTILE BATH MATS; TOWELS; HOODED TOWELS; BATH LINENS; BATH MATS; QUILTED DIAPER BAGS; QUILTED BIBS; CLOTH BANNERS; FABRIC CURTAINS; DISH CLOTHS; CLOTH DOILIES; CLOTH AND TEXTILE NAPKINS; DISH CLOTHS; WASH CLOTHS; CLOTH AND TEXTILE PLACEMATS; PUFFS FOR WINDOW TREATMENTS; FABRIC TABLE RUNNERS; SHROUDS; TABLE CLOTHS; TEXTILE TAPESTRIES; FABRIC EXERCISE MATS; FABRIC BEACH BAGS; FABRIC VALANCES; FABRIC CHAIR PADS; AND FABRIC GREETING CARDS
*****
Yes, you will be able to buy a genuine shabby Chic (R) shroud for your dearly separted loved ones.
posted on May 2, 2001 11:08:30 AM
You are more then welcome to open a McDunalds, just don't think of capitalizing on any other of the 5000+ trademarked terms, images, lettering or colors They have trademarked, copywrited and protected.
After all you can own a color why not a term.
I tried to get a color blue coppied at HomeDepot from a Tiffany Box for a baby room.
I was told they can't copy Tiffany Blue Because the color was owned by the company.
This is normal practice in the corporate world.
I say more power to the owners in protecting what they own.
How many times do we use the term Styrofoam as a generic term for polystyrene. And trust me the company that makes Styrofoam caught that one just in time.
posted on May 2, 2001 11:37:47 AM
At some very distant future date, our species will begin to evolve out of its historical patterns of greed and self-importance....
In the meantime...*G*
Anyone buying a ride to the space station?
Pat
edited to take the ' out of its...grrr
[ edited by camachinist on May 2, 2001 11:39 AM ]
posted on May 2, 2001 11:45:05 AM
shaani- ROTFLMAO at the "shabby sheiks" out there. Maybe they're onto something.
Reddeer has a good point too. If anything else surfaces in my inventory that needs those 2 words as keywords I'll probably go the old "shabby blah blah blah, very chic, NR" route in the future.
I think the biggest problem here is that she DIDN'T defend those 2 little words for so long. Now that they've become generic terms in the public's mind, she's gonna have a heckuva time doing it. None of this, or at least a lot less of it, would have happened if she'd been "defending her territory" all along...
And yes, I too am flabbergasted that COLORS can be copyrighted, but Mattel has their Barbie pink copyrighted so I know it's done...
posted on May 2, 2001 12:13:04 PM
Rachel Ashwell has had this term trademarked for quite sometime time. I am surprised it has taken her Lawyers this long to put an end to others using it for anything and everything.
Shabby Chic is a non-descriptive term. I hope it will force sellers to at least make an attempt to try to accurately describe whatever the object, instead of just Shabby Chic Picture Frame or whatever.
I also find it irritating. I am glad I will not be subjected to Shabby Chic on eBay any longer, and I make no apologies.
posted on May 2, 2001 01:09:15 PM
Packer ... as ORIGINALLY used by the author of the book, it meant excellent quality, but clearly not new items. The sort of thing you would find in a conservative wealthy family's house, with a couple of generations of wear on them. Comfy, perhaps well-mended, but elegant.
As bastardized by eBayers, it means ANTHING in ratty condition, with peeling paint or chips.
I first heard of Shabby Sheik on this board when there was a discussion of Shabby Chic a few months ago. I think it was also mentioned in one of the threads about spelling errors.
posted on May 2, 2001 01:40:32 PM
As far as I know, the people who own trademarks/servicemarks or whatever are obligated to ensure that they are not used without their permission.
To not do so puts the holder at risk for losing the rights to "insert name of thing they have the rights to"
posted on May 2, 2001 02:26:16 PM
Abacaxi - thanx for all the great info!!
I can understand the need for /protection provided by copyrights and their owners rights to defend then, BUT as a "home decor" TV addict, I also understand the concept of "Shabby Chic" by definition is old (typically white or floral) chipping paint type items combined with newer higher value items to create a warm cottage-like decor. I've read a couple of the books and the idea promoted is to search flea markets, garage sales, estate sales etc. to find the older worn pieces. Although the face of eBay has changed to include new/mass market items, the general concept was a giant flea market..What better place to find "Shabby Chic" items????......
Ms.Ashwell's designs & mass manufactured NEW items labled "Shabby Chic" are in direct conflict with her own definition!!...The items are supposed to be authentically OLD and WORN!!....It's so ridiculous, it's laughable!
Because I don't want and forced downtime from eBay, I will make sure that in the future I use "Shabby & Chic" (thanx for the idea redeer) or the "Shabby Very Chic" (thanx CAgrrl) labels in my auctions...
