User talk:IntangibleAssetEnthusiast

Trademark issues

I blocked this user account yesterday, with the rationale: "Disruptive edits: removing valid definitions and citational evidence, in the guise of "protecting trademarks". The user has sent me the following e-mail (which I hope he or she won't mind me quoting here, because it contains nothing sensitive). I will reply soon, on this same page.

Dear Equinox,

We would like to request that you please unblock our StobbsOBE account.

We did not have any intention of making 'disruptive edits'. Our aim is to improve the accuracy of the definitions and avoid misleading the readers.

For example, the definition of Ritz and Ritzy acknowledges in the etymology that it derives from the Ritz Hotel. However, there is nothing in the definition that makes it clear that RITZ is a registered trade mark. Further, the entry misleadingly provides a generic definition of Ritz meaning "a display of ostentatious elegance" and of ritzy meaning "elegant and luxurious", that suggests anyone can use Ritz/Ritzy in any context. However, as RITZ is a registered trade mark, which is actively enforced by its owner, The Ritz Hotel (London) Limited, there may be real harm to people reading the definition who might use the term thinking it is generic, when it could actually be enforced against them. We are concerned it's teaching the readers of the project that it’s appropriate or legally safe think the term is "generic", when it's not.

For full transparency, having read the terms of use and project rules in order to try to understand why we have been blocked, we would like to create a StobbsOBE user page and add the following, to disclose who we are and who be act on behalf of:

"We are a firm of trade mark attorneys and intellectual property advisors, acting for various clients, including The Ritz Hotel (London) Limited and McDonald's International Property Company, Ltd."

We hope that this explains what we are trying to achieve and that we want to do so within the rules of the project. We are open to receiving any suggestions from you on achieving this aim.

Should you wish to discuss this matter, we would be glad to do so over the telephone as well as by email.

Best regards

StobbsOBE

Equinox ◑ 15:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I understand your job is protecting your client's marks. Fine. However, from the perspective of our project (documenting words as they are actually used in reality, and not just how you would like them to be used): you have been causing actual harm, and removing useful material and evidence of usage.

Since I'm not any kind of lawyer, I won't go beyond that, except to say that you are obviously aware of the possibility of genericization (kleenex, hoover, etc. whether you think that has happened to "your" marks or not), and also you should appreciate the linguistic value of storing copies or snippets of real texts that show how words have been used.

You aren't here to do actual linguistic work but rather to serve a commercial purpose, so I think the block is justified. Equinox ◑ 15:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Equinox,

While your views expressed above may justify (from your perspective) reverting our changes, they do not justify blocking us as a user. We should be allowed to engage in discussions on talk pages and tea rooms etc. regarding these definitions and to prevent us by blocking our account is excessive. We are being open and transparent about who we are, what we are doing and why we are doing it, in accordance with the rules of the site, and we believe that users have the right to know if their use of a word could lead to a legal issue.

Therefore, we kindly request that you unblock us so that we can engage in this dialogue.

Best regards

StobbsOBE StobbsOBE (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, regarding "ritzy", you might like to check out the OED, or Oxford English Dictionary, often seen as one of the world's best. I think the word has been more or less generic since at least the 1960s, perhaps earlier. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Please can you unblock my user account so that I can continue to engage in this dialogue, not just with you but with other users too, in order that we can reach a consensus in the best interests of the public at what information should be included on these pages?

In the OED ([1]https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=ritz), Ritz is defined as "Chiefly with the. A proprietary name for: one of a chain of luxury hotels. Frequently used allusively to denote wealth or opulence." Therefore it makes it clear that it is a trade mark/proprietary name and that the etymology derives from Cesar Ritz and his chain of famous hotels that go by the same name.

This is what I would like to achieve on the Ritz Wiktionary page (ritz) because at present, the Etymology section only says "Back-formation from ritzy." so does it not explain the connection to/derivation from Cesar Ritz or the hotels, nor is this mentioned anywhere else on this page (even in the 2 definitions, noun and verb, that are included). Therefore, this reference to Cesar Ritz and the hotels ought to at least be added as one of the definitions/etymology to improve its accuracy for users, otherwise, the entry is failing linguistically as it is not including the most valid definition/information and citations for RITZ. I also believe that noting that Ritz is a proprietary name (as per the OED) is sensible for complete transparency as it alerts users that use of the Ritz trade mark without permission could lead to a legal issue.

The Etymology section of the Ritzy Wiktionary page (ritzy) "From the Ritz Hotels of New York, London, etc (now Ritz-Carlton Hotels) +‎ -y, from Ritz hotel founder César Ritz, from southern Switzerland." at least does reference Cesar Ritz and the hotels. Albeit that The Ritz, London and The Ritz, Paris are under separate ownership to the Ritz-Carlton chain nowadays.

I hope you can see that I am genuinely trying to improve the accuracy of the pages for the benefit of the users, within the terms of the project and I am happy to disclose a COI and make it clear that I am a paid editor by using [connected contributor (paid)] now that I am aware of this requirement.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks StobbsOBE (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@StobbsOBE, thank you for disclosing your affiliations. Taking your assertion that you want to improve accuracy at face value, and acknowledging that conflicts of interest make other contributors uncomfortable, would you be willing to refrain from making any edits directly on behalf of, or in support of, any of your clients? Instead of making the edits directly you can request such edits be made and provide rationale, and then those edits can be discussed and agreed upon by others. We can discuss the best mechanism for making such requests, but we have a few venues which might be appropriate. If you are willing to engage with the project in that way I would support lifting the block on your account. - TheDaveRoss 13:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss yes I certainly would be willing to consider this. Please just explain the process that you would like me to follow to request an edit. As you can see, this is what I have recently tried doing in my reply to Loaxxere in relation to the Quarter Pounder page, requesting the change I would like to make and explaining the rationale and providing supporting evidence. Many thanks StobbsOBE (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss Please can you let me know how I can request such edits to be made? I am happy to follow an alternative process and am keen to move this forward please. I look forward to hearing from you. StobbsOBE (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I unblocked you. (@Equinox FYI). As for what the process might look like, that is up to the community to decide. I've created a discussion on the matter for others to weigh in. Until there is resolution there, please refrain from editing entries for which there is a potential conflict of interest. - TheDaveRoss 17:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me. I have reviewed the discussion page and contributed to it and look forward to reaching an outcome. StobbsOBE (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Email from User:StobbsOBE

Hi Loaxxere,

Are you able to help get my account unblocked please?

You kindly posted a comment on 6 June (@Surjection I don't see why you were reverting the edits in the first place—the fact that quarter-pounder happens to be a trademarked phrase is obviously relevant information. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2023).

I have been conversing with Equinox who blocked my account but she's/he's stopped responding to my messages since 3 August: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:StobbsOBE I tried changing my account name to resolve the issue highlighted by UtherSRG but was told that although on enwiki the name change would solve my issues, on en.wiktionary it would not as my block goes beyond just my username. So without a reply from Equinox, my account remains blocked and I am unable to do anything to change its status.

I'm fairly new to tackling these issues on Wiktionary and having read the terms of use and project rules in order to try to understand why I had been blocked, I tried to disclose who I am/who Stobbs is and who I act on behalf of ("We are a firm of trade mark attorneys and intellectual property advisors, acting for various clients, including The Ritz Hotel (London) Limited and McDonald's International Property Company, Ltd.") but this was misunderstood as advertising! I am genuinely trying to improve the accuracy of the pages for the benefit of the users, within the terms of the project and I am happy to disclose a COI and make it clear that I am a paid editor by using [connected contributor (paid)] now that I am aware of this requirement. StobbsOBE (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2023.

Where a term is a registered trade mark, which is actively enforced by its owner, there may be real harm to people reading the definition who might use the term thinking it is generic, when it could actually be enforced against them. I am concerned it's teaching the readers of the project that it’s appropriate or legally safe think the term is "generic", when it's not. The etymology section of quarter-pounder erroneously describes Quarter Pounder as a genericized trademark and i would like to just deleted the word 'genericized': https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quarter-pounder

Any guidance you can give on getting my account unblocked or achieving my aims highlighted above of improving the legal accuracy of pages for users would be much appreciated.

Many thanks

[name]

I think this is a pretty compelling argument. List of generic and genericized trademarks on WikipediaWikipedia specifically distinguishes "list of protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms". I've revised the note to reflect that the term is not generic in the official sense in the US.

Ioaxxere (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Loaxxere, thanks for your reply. My account doesn't seem to have been unblocked on Wiktionary/Wikipedia. Are you able to help with this please? Many thanks StobbsOBE (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere Even if a user has a legitimate argument (and I think we're on pretty thin ice here) remember we are dealing with a paid representative with a commercial basis. I think there is very much a case to say that we shouldn't allow or support such parties regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their arguments, because it goes against our idea as a free, open-source entity. I think this is very important and I would ask you, Ioaxxere, to bring this to the public forum (e.g. WT:BP) before making any apparently innocent deals with these people. Equinox ◑ 05:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I am happy to disclose a COI and make it clear that I am a paid editor by using [connected contributor (paid)] now that I am aware of this requirement. There are lots of other users who disclose a COI and I feel maintaining a total account block is disproportionate as there is a mechanism to allow me to declare this, which I am happy to follow. I will be mindful of the points raised in this experience and just wish to engage in the dialogue with other users, so that all views can be represented. Many thanks StobbsOBE (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not unblock, thank you. PUC – 11:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Loaxxere,

My account doesn't seem to have been unblocked on Wiktionary/Wikipedia. Are you able to help with this please?

Thank you for amending the Quarter Pounder Wiktionary page and directing me to the List of generic and genericized trademarks on Wikipedia, which I was not previously aware of. Having reviewed your changes and this list, I am unsure why you have added the sentence "Now often used as a genericized trademark, although the trademark remains active in the United States" because Quarter Pounder is not on the List of former trademarks that have been genericized nor is it on the List of protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms. Further, it is widely protected as a trade mark outside of the United States, so saying the trademark remains active in the United States may mislead users into thinking it is not active elsewhere. McDonald's owns 89 active trademark registrations worldwide across 61 countries. Please see the attached report from the public trade mark registers. [2]https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome#/tmview/results?page=1&pageSize=30&criteria=C&basicSearch=quarter%20pounder&tmStatus=Filed,Registered

I don't think we need to expressly mention trademarks in this case anymore, because your amended first sentence in the Etymology section "From the Quarter Pounder, a hamburger sold by the fast food chain McDonald's since 1971." makes it clear that we are referring to McDonald's proprietary term.

Therefore, please can you delete "Now often used as a genericized trademark, although the trademark remains active in the United States"?

Many thanks StobbsOBE (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere - I just wanted to check if you have had chance to consider my message above please? StobbsOBE (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@StobbsOBE Unfortunately I don't have the power to unblock you since I don't have administrative permissions. I think we should emphasize that it's a trademark given that per your previous comment "there may be real harm to people reading the definition who might use the term thinking it is generic, when it could actually be enforced against them", but I did change the last part to "the trademark remains active in many countries." Ioaxxere (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@loaxxere I can see that you have amended the Quarter Pounder page quarter-pounder to now say "Now sometimes used as a genericized trademark, although the trademark remains active in many countries." instead of "Now often used as a genericized trademark, although the trademark remains active in the United States".

I am happy to emphasize Quarter Pounder is a trademark (since there are 89 active trademark registrations worldwide across 61 countries), but I would like to politely request it is not called a “genericized trademark”, given that it is not on the List of protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks, and the use of “genericized trademark” still causes users reading the definition to think the term is generic when there’s a risk it could be enforced against them in 61 countries.

Further, please can the category “English genericised trademarks” (in the box below the definition) be removed as this trademark is registered in the UK?

Thank you for your assistance with this matter. StobbsOBE (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the entry is fine as it is. Your focus on quarter-pounder might be a little excessive at this point. Maybe do something more productive, like documenting a few obscure African langauges. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)