PTT Trade Marked?

According to an add in the New York Times for
Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.

So VZW may wish to use something else.

And this from a SATISFIED VZW user.


--
GandalfSC
--
Scanned by Norton Anti-Virus
And deemed herewith Virus Free

---

› See More: PTT Trade Marked?

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>According to an add in the New York Times for
>Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.

"Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
obviously isn't.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>According to an add in the New York Times for
>Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.

"Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
obviously isn't.

It was Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, and "GandalfSC"
<[email protected]> wrote in alt.cellular.verizon:
| According to an add in the New York Times for
| Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.

You believe advertising?

| So VZW may wish to use something else.

Nope. "Push to Talk" is not a registered trademark.
Nextel has attempted this, failed before, and has still
not reached registered status.

JL


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

It was Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, and "GandalfSC"
<[email protected]> wrote in alt.cellular.verizon:
| According to an add in the New York Times for
| Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.

You believe advertising?

| So VZW may wish to use something else.

Nope. "Push to Talk" is not a registered trademark.
Nextel has attempted this, failed before, and has still
not reached registered status.

JL


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>According to an add in the New York Times for
>>Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>
>
> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
> obviously isn't.
>
I would agree with this. It reminds me of the whole Al Franken/ Fox
thing a few weeks ago. You have a hard time convincing the courts that
a combination of frequently used words, or a commonly used phrase, can
be trademarked.

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>According to an add in the New York Times for
>>Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>
>
> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
> obviously isn't.
>
I would agree with this. It reminds me of the whole Al Franken/ Fox
thing a few weeks ago. You have a hard time convincing the courts that
a combination of frequently used words, or a commonly used phrase, can
be trademarked.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 03:41:36 GMT, Scott Stephenson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>According to an add in the New York Times for
>>>Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>>
>>
>> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
>> obviously isn't.
>>
>I would agree with this. It reminds me of the whole Al Franken/ Fox
>thing a few weeks ago. You have a hard time convincing the courts that
>a combination of frequently used words, or a commonly used phrase, can
>be trademarked.

Seems like a "fair and balanced" comment to me.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 03:41:36 GMT, Scott Stephenson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>According to an add in the New York Times for
>>>Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>>
>>
>> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
>> obviously isn't.
>>
>I would agree with this. It reminds me of the whole Al Franken/ Fox
>thing a few weeks ago. You have a hard time convincing the courts that
>a combination of frequently used words, or a commonly used phrase, can
>be trademarked.

Seems like a "fair and balanced" comment to me.

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >According to an add in the New York Times for
> >Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
> >
> "The Ghost of General Lee" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
> obviously isn't.
>
I should have put a comma after nextel, I think.
I'll have to dig the paper out of the recycle bin and
check it again.


--
GandalfSC
--
Scanned by Norton Anti-Virus
And deemed herewith Virus Free

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >According to an add in the New York Times for
> >Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
> >
> "The Ghost of General Lee" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
> obviously isn't.
>
I should have put a comma after nextel, I think.
I'll have to dig the paper out of the recycle bin and
check it again.


--
GandalfSC
--
Scanned by Norton Anti-Virus
And deemed herewith Virus Free

GandalfSC wrote:
> According to an add in the New York Times for
> Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>
> So VZW may wish to use something else.
>
> And this from a SATISFIED VZW user.
>
>

Doesn't Nextel have Direct Connect service marked? I've never heard of
Nextel's service referred to as Push To Talk.

GandalfSC wrote:
> According to an add in the New York Times for
> Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>
> So VZW may wish to use something else.
>
> And this from a SATISFIED VZW user.
>
>

Doesn't Nextel have Direct Connect service marked? I've never heard of
Nextel's service referred to as Push To Talk.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:35:36 GMT, "GandalfSC"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >According to an add in the New York Times for
>> >Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>> >
>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <[email protected]>
>> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
>> obviously isn't.
>>
>I should have put a comma after nextel, I think.
>I'll have to dig the paper out of the recycle bin and
>check it again.

I presumed you meant to put a comma there, but my original statement
still stands. I think they could trademark it as "Nextel Push to
Talk", but as has been bashed around here for weeks already, the
generic term "push to talk" by itself has been around for so long in
general use, I don't see how anyone could trademark it. And if anyone
could, it sure as hell wouldn't be Nextel.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:35:36 GMT, "GandalfSC"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:52:28 GMT, "GandalfSC"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >According to an add in the New York Times for
>> >Nextel Push To Talk is Trade Marked.
>> >
>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <[email protected]>
>> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Nextel Push to Talk" may very well be, but "Push to Talk" on it's own
>> obviously isn't.
>>
>I should have put a comma after nextel, I think.
>I'll have to dig the paper out of the recycle bin and
>check it again.

I presumed you meant to put a comma there, but my original statement
still stands. I think they could trademark it as "Nextel Push to
Talk", but as has been bashed around here for weeks already, the
generic term "push to talk" by itself has been around for so long in
general use, I don't see how anyone could trademark it. And if anyone
could, it sure as hell wouldn't be Nextel.