Humanities desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 12

Multi-owner trademarks

In United States trademark law, is it possible for two or more independent parties (as opposed to related parties, e.g. two subsidiaries of the same parent company) to co-own a trademark? Imagine that Burger King and McDonalds independently develop a sandwich with certain features. Instead of trying to hurt each other, the two decide to cooperate temporarily because Wendy's will start offering a sandwich with the same contents once the new thing takes off, and they want to boost name recognition for theirs while forcing the hypothetical Wendy's sandwich to use some separate name. Therefore, McD's and BK together apply for a single trademark that both will use at the new sandwich's name, and they agree not to sub-license it to any competitors. If it met all the other registration criteria, would this joint trademark have a chance at registration, or would it be excluded simply because it's owned by two companies that aren't related? I'm aware that my specific example might provoke charges of collusion, but I don't think that all potential instances of multi-owner trademarks would necessarily risk collusion claims, so my question should still go ahead. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Trademark article says it can be "any legal entity". If McD and BK entered into a Joint venture, it seems reasonable that a legal entity could result and could register a trademark. (I can think of instances of this kind of thing in my own industry, but that's manufacturing as opposed to fast food.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does that work? Basically the two companies form "McKing, Inc.", which registers the trademark and then issues licenses to McDonald's and Burger King allowing them to use McKing's trademark? Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't need to register a new company, a trade mark can be owned by multiple persons or legal entities. As to what the co-owners can do with the mark, different countries have different rules about what each co-owner can and can't do with the co-owned mark (and the rules may differ between trade marks, patents etc in the same country). I don't know what the precise rules are in the US. One possible iteration of the rules is that each co-owner can use the mark themselves, but cannot license others to use it without the other co-owner's permission. Another might be each co-owner cannot even use the mark themselves without the other's permission.

In the specific example you refer to, there is an added complication that McDonalds claims to have trade mark rights in the "Mc-" prefix itself in the food business context, so BK might need an additional licence from McDonalds to use "Mc-" as part of "McKing". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's disputed, but DC and Marvel claim to jointly hold a trademark on the term Super Hero. Rojomoke (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germane: When two become one – the complications of joint mark ownership --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European politician's quote on word for "child" across languages

Back around 2001-2004, a European body (it may have been the European Union) made a proposal to criminalize sex with or among adolescents under the age of 18. It referred to itself as protecting "children" and said it was to stop "children" from having sex. One politician objected to the infantilization of 16- and 17-year-olds with this proposed age of consent measure, and was quoted in the media as saying something like, "In no language does the word for 'child' refer to anyone later than his or her early teens". Which politician was this, and what was his exact quote? I've entered Google queries like "'no language' 'word for child' 'early teens'" and had no luck at all finding articles on this nor even the quote. I've even tried substituting "any language", "word meaning child" and "low teens", with still no cigar. (Indonesian may be an exception to this, though, as its word for "teenager", anak_belasan_tahun, is derived from anak, meaning "child". Palmar-plantar keratoderma (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For legal purposes it might be useful to look at different countries and their languages' word for "minor," referring to a person who has yet to reach the legally designated age of adulthood ("majority"). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: Attaining the set age of majority isn't necessarily identical to the designated age in whatever country for such activities as marriage, purchasing and using alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives, eligibility for military conscription, and of course voting to elect the officials who regulate all this. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The document in question was the 2001 "Framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography" produced by the European Commission, which was criticised because it defined anyone under 18 as a child. Wymspen (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There would probably be less controversy about that now. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using that tip, I've found the quote: at http://www.rklambda.at/archiv/symposium/sympos_en.htm : "No language in the world ever used the term child for persons beyond their early teens. It was the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 which first did away with the distinction between children and adolescents and labelled all minors under 18 children." Thanks for pointing me in this direction, Wymspen! Palmar-plantar keratoderma (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No language in the world ever used the term child for persons beyond their early teens" - except English, where it can mean someone's son or daughter regardless of their age, or a descendent of a notable ancestor. Source. Also, I'm pretty sure that the idea of a "teenager" as a distinct thing is a recent (mid-20th Century) development, so I'm dubious that 1989 marked an unprecedented change in the understanding of what a child was. Iapetus (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British happily use and understand the terms " my children are all grown up" and "his second childhood". 82.14.24.95 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary suggests that this is a different meaning from the one in question: "1. A person who has not yet reached adulthood, whether natural (puberty), cultural (initiation), or legal (majority). 2. (with possessive) One's son or daughter, regardless of age". Alansplodge (talk)

Children's poetry

Probably English -

I lie on my back and I stare at the sky I see woolly sheep-clouds go wandering by The wind is their shepherd so gentle and strong He sings as he shepherds his sheep-clouds along

Can't remember any more.

Can anyone help me find the whole poem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.164.30 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried doing searches on Google for you. However there are hundreds of poems which sound similar if you do a search with a link of the poem you've described but I can't pinpoint which one it is.... Other's will have to step in here Stewart Little (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several fragments of your poem and none of them find a match on Google. The best I could do was from Mary Hunter Austin: "The wind is the shepherd who drives the clouds / Across the fields of the sky..." The Road to the Spring: Collected Poems of Mary Austin. A large number of 19th and early 20th century children's books included poems like this, and unless somebody has transcribed the text, Google wouldn't pick it up. Alansplodge (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you successfully sue an insurance company for breach of contract if they sell you an insurance contract which is contrary to public policy and then refuse to pay up?

clear request for legal advice. Seek a lawyer to answer your questions. --Jayron 32 02:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Or would your lack of insurable interest in regards to this ensure that your lawsuit would fail? Futurist110 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the laws in your region, as well as on what "contrary to public policy" would mean. You would need to find a lawyer to see whether a suit might have a chance of success. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are just asking about insurable interest, the answer is no, except to the extent that you seek a recovery of premiums paid plus interest. "Issuing a policy, or insuring property, with knowledge of the true situation, may estop or preclude the insurer from questioning the sufficiency of the insured's interest. However, this rule does not validate or render enforceable a policy where there is an entire absence of an insurable interest. Neither waiver nor estoppel may be invoked in that situation." Corpus Juris Secundum, Insurance § 323 (footnotes omitted). John M Baker (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read clean hands or in pari delicto and draw your own conclusions about the enforceability of an illegal contract you signed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do flag this as a possible "legal advice question", should it be hatted? Eliyohub (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books about the euro

I want to get someone (an economist) a book about the euro as a present. My first thought was Joseph Stiglitz, but there are two listed on amazon: The Euro: And its Threat to the Future of Europe and The Euro: How a Common Currency Threatens the Future of Europe, one from June 2016 and one from August 2016. What's the difference and which is best to get? Are there any other good books about the euro and its problems/challenges/future that you can recommend. thanks. --ZygonLieutenant (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The appear to be US and UK editions of the same book - the "common currency" being added in the US version as the publisher clearly thinks a lot of Americans won't know what the Euro is. Wymspen (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And think it means The European: Its Threat to the Future of Europe The Euro (viral dance): Its Threat to the Future of Europe or The Euro (perverted sexual thing): Its Threat to the Future of Europe? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2017

Possibly - though confusion between the Euro and the EU seems more likely. Wymspen (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]