But epinephrine is the original generic term. “Adrenaline” was originally a trademarked name, and "adrenaline followed.
The tangled history:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7233/506
There was a court case that phone book listings could not be copyrighted because they are facts.
Seems to me the same would hold true for Super Bowl and Ford Mustang. It’s a fact that the radio station is giving away Super Bowl tickets. Not Rolling Stones tickets, Super Bowl tickets. They’re giving away a Ford Mustang, not a Chevy Chevette.
That NFL file is incredible. It says that in marketing or promotions:
You cannot say or print: “Super Bowl” you have to say “The Big Game in Houston”
You cannot say or print: “Super Sunday”, “NFL”, “AFC”, “NFC”, or any team name.
However, you are allowed to say or print the cities of the teams, the date of the game, and you can “make fun of the fact that you cannot say the phrase ‘Super Bowl’ (e.g., by beeping it out).” Well duh, I guess they haven’t managed to trademark the calendar or city names yet. But they’re probably working on it!
One more time!
“Epiniephrine” is the original generic term (regardless if based on false connections).
“Adrenalin” was originally a trademarked name, and “adrenaline” followed.
yeah, there’s a final “e”. But I’ll bet Kimberley-Clarke wouldn’t be happy if you blew your nose in generic “Kleenexe”.
But the Super Bowl isn’t a copyright, it’s a trademark. They have “Super Bowl” and “Super Sunday” etc., registered as trademarks and they choose not to let people use them to make money for themselves unless they pony up a fee.
I’m not sure why this is so unreasonable. Last year I took pictures during a show here, and a lot of people who had fan sites asked if they could use my pictures for their sites. My only stipulation was that I didn’t want them used for any commercial purposes. They’re my pictures, why would I want someone else making money off of them when they didn’t pay any money to me?
Sorry, knew I should have quoted. That was to control-z, in case it wasn’t clear.
Because I am mean.
This argument is why a lot of people think that if anyone challenged the N.F.L. in court they might win, but it hasn’t been done yet. There are arguments on the other side – do you have the right to use another person’s named product to promote your unrelated business? There’s an argument that Chevrolet could say “No, Nazi Party of America, you cannot promote your fund-raising drive with a raffle that names the prize as a Chevrolet Chevette.”
I’ve read a lot of your posts. I don’t think that’s true. 
IANAL, but my nonlegal understanding is: probably not anymore, since they’ve failed to vigorously defend against this use of their trademark in the past. That’s why the vigorous defense, obnoxious as I personally find it, is so important.
If Ford had kept other people from using the Mustang trademark in such a fashion ever since they came up with the Mustang, though, ISTM they’d be as well situated, legally, as the NFL is with the Super Bowl.
Wonder if they could call it the “HyperBowl” in promos? (Certainly enough hyperbole around it, each year, for that name to make sense.) The NFL can’t exactly say “Bowl” is the critical part of the trademark; bowl games were around for an eon before Pete Rozelle invented the Super Bowl.
Oh, it gets worse. The Commonwealth of Kentucky’s decision to copyright the name “Kentucky” and charge royalties for commercial use of it has caused more than the end of the name Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The first and most famous Triple Crown horse race of the US season is now officially “The Derby at Churchill Downs”. I almost dread the traditional pre-race singing of “My Old Bleepucky Home” this year.
And all this time I thought it was because if you said “Superbowl” seven times, the Super Bowl would appear behind you and kill you.
Is this a whoosh?
First of all, no one can copyright a single word. You might be able to trademark it, but you would have to show use in commerce associated with a particular product or service. Under U.S. law, I can’t imagine a situation in which a government would be permitted to trademark the name of its corresponding geographical entity without reference to something specific.
The whole KFC thing is an urban hoax, by the way. They changed the name, essentially, because they felt like it.
But even if it were true that the Kentucky state government somehow obtained a trademark, they wouldn’t be able to show that Kentucky Fried Chicken’s use caused confusion amongst consumers. Primarily, because the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not sell fried chicken at retail establishments. But also, even if they did start doing it, KFC would be the senior user of the mark and would have prior rights.
“Empire State Building” and the Empire State Building’s design are trademarks of the Empire State Building Company, although I do not think they would threaten legal action if you said the name of the building without their permission. However, you would need their permission to show a photograph of the building. Nobody holds a trademark on “King Kong”- in fact, in most of their marketing (toys, etc.), Universal has been using the (trademarked) phrase, “Kong, the Eighth Wonder of the World.” (Universal found out that “King Kong” can’t be trademarked the hard way in 1982, when they sued Nintendo for infringement regarding Donkey Kong.)
In a way, yes. The “the reason KFC changed their name is because they didn’t want to pay royalties to the state of Kentucky” explanation comes from a gag page on Snopes.com, part of a number of silly legends which are designed to show that even the most trusted authorities can fall for an urban legend, hoax, or other falsehood (something to which Dan Rather can certainly attest). Snopes does have a serious page explaining why KFC changed its name (mainly because of the negative connotations of the word “fried” and its adding other foods besides chicken to the menu), although the company has announced it will be using the long version of the name again on its storefronts.
Apparently. On me. I hate that.
Is there a similar thing with the Olympic Games? It always looks to me like some newspapers use the word Olympic yet others dance around and call them the Torino Games or whatever. Is it that some papers have paid for the right to use the word Olympic in their coverage?
Are you sure of that? I thought it was now called “the Kentucky Derby presented by Yum! Brands”. Gotta love the history in that name.
The Olympic marks are a special case in that they are protected by a special statutory provision that gives the I.O.C., etc. even more protection than the N.F.L. can claim for “SuperBowl.”
None of this covers news coverage. I have seen the words “Superbowl”, “super Sunday” and Olympics in every newspaper and on every sports broadcast. That same newspaper can not have a special Superbowl contest in those same pages. I just looked in the paper and there was a section called “Super Bowl Plus”. There is also mention of the Olympics.
Your example is about copyright, not trademarks.
It’s unreasonable because if you can’t say “Super Bowl”, you can’t describe the offer you’re making. Imagine if you were trying to sell your car through the want ads, but you weren’t allowed to mention the make or model. You just had to say “it’s one of those trucks that ROVES over all kinds of LAND”, or “it’s the kind of TOY you might see Tom SELLECK-A driving”.
Wouldn’t that be silly? You’d have to dance around an issue that really is the most important fact about what you’re offering. The people who might buy your car want to know it’s a Land Rover or a Toyota Celica, just like the people who enter a contest want to know the tickets they might win are for the Super Bowl. That’s the whole attraction. The only reason the contest is worth entering is because the tickets are for that particular game.
If you have to dance around it, your customers don’t really know what they’re getting. Say I entice you to buy something by giving you a chance to win tickets for “the big football game in Detroit that rhymes with Dooper Bowl”, and it turns out to be Cooper Mole’s First Annual Gridiron Showdown - would you have any recourse? I’ve obviously deceived you, but on the other hand, I gave you exactly what I promised.
It seems to me this is a clear case of nominative fair use: the phrase Super Bowl is being used to explain which football game the tickets are for, a vital fact that’s hard to accurately express any other way. I’m not surprised that the NFL’s position hasn’t been proven in court.
A slight hijack, but the disclaimers the NFL plays during the games on TV says that any descriptions of the game without their consent is prohibited. Does that mean if I say something like “in the Steelers-Bengals playoff game, Carson Palmer took a hit on the first play that ended his season?” that the NFL and/or the Player’s Association could sue me even though I’m reporting a factual event? Would I be okay if I danced around the names by instead saying “in the Pittsburg-Cincinnati playoff game, Cincinnati’s starting QB was knocked out of the game on the first play”, or would that still be considered a description of the game? Would it make a difference if I were at the game in person, as apposed to watching the TV broadcast?