[Tim Chandler @ Feb 9th 2007 2:36AM]

Unfortunately, this article presents several inaccuracies and misstatements.

First, "continuous use" is not as stringent as you seem to imply. Companies can go years without using a trademark and not have legally abandoned it.

Second, it is extremely inaccurate to say that you have to exercise "tight" control over the trademark name. Courts have held that you merely have to exercise reasonable control. For example, if an individual is infringing your copyright on a small scale and you do nothing about it, this will not likely lead to a problem. You only need to police those infringing actions that rise to a certain substantive level - not every infringement.

Third, the precautions you list to avoid genericide are worth nothing more than what they are attempting to prevent. Doing any of them in an of themselves does nothing for you. The key is whether or not the public thinks that it is a generic term. So, if you do every precaution imaginable but the public still considers it generic, your actions were in vain.

There are several other misstatements. I encourage you to consult with a trademark expert / professor rather than students on a law journal. I was in a prominent position on an international law journal at a highly-ranked law school, but that certainly didn't make me an expert.

[Trevor Adler @ Feb 9th 2007 1:32PM]

The law student members of the Columbia Science & Technology Law Review do not purport to be experts in any legal field. We're not attorneys; we're law students who research and post analysis pieces on Engadget as a service to the Engadget readership and other interested persons. To that end, we appreciate constructive criticism and welcome comments regarding the issues we raise and the points that we make.

Trevor Adler
Executive Editor
Columbia Science & Technology Law Review