From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <1c2cf173d87d415f1540c8d58affb1e6@terzarima.net> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] PLAN9 From: Charles Forsyth Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:17:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <44E1D03A.8050805@village.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9fde4350-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > In the U.S., that's close enough to constitute a case. not invariably for computer software (excluding evident intent to mislead for instance wrt origin), since it's one of the classes considered to allow many non-interfering subclasses. someone would have to decide whether that's true in this case (and of course there are many other rules considered). if Lucent had registered it as a general software product brand name and used it as such, it would be different, but `Plan 9' was restricted at registration. for similar reasons, there is more than one `Inferno' in software. the US PTO demanded quite a bit of evidence of real use for Inferno, and expected a reasonably refined goods & services, before registration. i don't think they went as far as actually installing it.