Champagne generically is neither patented nor trademarked.  Champagne is
merely the name for a sparkling wine produced from grapes grown in the
Champagne province of France.  For an excellent and accurate primer on the
subject, refer to Rob Lowe's character in Wayne's World as he describes the
difference to Wayne and Garth.  If something is either trademarked or
patented, someone or something owns it.  Now, of course, you can patent or
trademark a particular process or formula for champagne, but that's
something different altogether.


----- Original Message -----
From: "lindsey johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:30 PM
Subject: [PWA-L] patent problem


> "Just a small point. I've noticed in American
> novels that whiskey is referred to when they really mean whisky. The
> terms are patented, like champagne, which is why some American rye
>
> Okay my boss says that you can't patent a name, which I know is not
actually
> what this quote says, but still I know that he is wrong.  It has been too
> long since Mass Comm Law.  So please tell me if I am right....
>
> I know that you Trademark a name.  But in talking about Champagne, Whiskey
> and Whisky, we are speaking of the generic term for a thing.  Basically a
> recipe.  And for these things to be called such they must meet the basic
> standards of this recipe.  Bread for instance-flour, water and a leavener.
> So what we are talking about is an invention, which is indeed what a
patent
> protects.  And the generic term represents that invention, which logically
> follows is protects by the patent of the object as well. Basically (I like
> that word today) it would be like copywriting a book but not copywriting
the
> title.  Please tell me if this is correct and if there is anything else
that
> I should add to my rebuttal.
>
> BTW.   I think that American writers have too much time on thier hands if
> they are worried about the proper form of Whiskey/Whisky to use.  Unless
> that is if they are trying to use this as a technique of chracterization
or
> setting, in which case thier character would probably be a little bit
> pretentious and should explain why he/she will only drink whiskey and not
> whisky.  Or if they are writing a book in which the time period and
> location--England vs Scottland would matter.  Well actually I guess I can
> see a lot situations in which the writer should pay attention to the
> spelling.  In general though and modern American writer, writing a modern
> American story, for a modern american audience, shouldn't lose too much
> sleep over the appropriate spelling.
>
> Please give me input on the patent question.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lindsey
>
>
> >From: Kent Graham <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: [PWA-L] [Fwd: Aqua vit]
> >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:55:12 -0500
> >
> >  ------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Aqua vit
> >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:10:15 -0500
> >From: "J. Madison Davis" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >I've always been fond of the old spelling "uisquebaugh" or its
variations.
> >I don't know about the Regency. I know Gov. Alexander Spotswood had a
huge
> >selection of it on his trip to explore the western mountains of Virginia
in
> >the mid 18th. Random House dictionary dates it "[1705 15; short for
> >whiskybae < Ir uisce beatha or ScotGael uisge beatha, ult. trans. of ML
> >aqua vitae lit., water of life; cf. USQUEBAUGH]"
> >
> >and it also says that whisky (neat, no e) is used especially for Scotch
and
> >Canadian, but doesn't say preferred or anything like that
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus