AP reports that McDonald’s is ruffled over a new Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary entry for McJob: "low paying and dead-end work." A company spokesman is quoted: "McJOBS is trademarked and we’ve notified them that legally that’s an issue for us as well." Apparently they didn’t notice the similar OED [sub. req.] entry that’s existed since 2001, or the American Heritage 2000 entry.
McDonald’s is no stranger to litigation: the
McLibel trial
was one of the longest ever in the U.K.;
the
scalding coffee case is often misunderstood; the company
failed to disclose the use of beef flavoring in its fries; and although a recent obesity lawsuit was dismissed, a Big Mac, large fries and a 16 oz. chocolate shake still total 134% of the USDA Recommended Daily Intake for saturated fat.
Disturbing…
Can language really be litigated? Can a judge rule that it is illegal to use a word in everyday language in a way that it is intended not to? If McDonald’s wins, will it be illegal for my friends and I use to use the word “McJobs”?
Intellectual Property is a good thing, but too much litigation of a good thing can bring a society to its knees.
Re:Disturbing…
Pending database legislation aside, as I understand it, basic facts cannot be copyrighted. So it’s okay for me to tell you the Yanks lost the World Series, even though I’m relaying the events of a MLB copyrighted telecast without their expressed written consent.
As for registered trademarks and service marks, I’m not sure what the law is, but it looks like as long as you credit the trademark it’s okay (“Athlon is faster than Pentium! Pentium is a trademark of Intel, Inc.”).
Maybe McDonald’s thinks they have a libel case, but you’d think they’d learn how these things turn out.
McJobs trademark?
I’m surprised that McDonald’s could trademark “McJobs”. I don’t think they invented it.
First time I saw it used was in connection to a Douglas Coupland novel … I think it was “Shampoo Planet” but I could be wrong. And along those lines, I think it’s always been a dismissive term. Is it possible to trademark a word in order to alter its original meaning?
*Interested but clueless about etymology*
Re:McJobs trademark?
Someone else first using a word does not keep you from trademarking it. Take the word, “Apple” for example. Before the computer company the word was often used. You can get a trademark by using the term in commerce.
Re:McJobs trademark?
Is it “Apple” or “Apple Computer” that’s trademarked?
I supposed my query is really, “Can a person/company trademark a name/phrase/etc. if they do not use it, just to keep other people from using it?”
Re:McJobs trademark?
Yes, if the owners defend it. You can lose the right to a trademark if it’s seeped into common usage; for example, a former employee at Xerox PARC told me that they were required to use “photocopy” as the verb instead of “Xerox” because it would dilute the trademark.
Re:McJobs trademark?
In that case McDonald’s is screwed. I have seen and use McJob all the time. It definition is perfect for the term and is commonly used. I also xerox things.
Re:McJobs trademark?
But surely the issue is , aside from the trademarking one or any positive or negative feelings regarding McDonalds, whether the job of a Dictionary is to reflect current usgae of a particular term , in which case the question has to be asked is the expression “McJob” used widely in the way that the definition implies . If so it is basically legitimate for inclusion in the dictionary