William Penn Life, 1994 (29. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1994-07-01 / 7. szám

Page 2, William Penn Life, July 1994

William Penn

LIFE

Official Publication of the William Penn Association Published Monthly Office of Publication:

709 Brighton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Phone: 412/231-2979 Third Class U.S. Postage Paid Pittsburgh, PA Permit No. 2724

E. E. Vargo Editor-in-Chief

George S. Charles, Jr. Frances A. Furedy Associate Editors

John E. Lovász Managing Editor

NATIONAL OFFICERS E. E. Vargo National President’

George S. Charles, Jr. National V.P./Secretary

Frances A. Furedy National V.P./Treasurer

Robert A. Kapinus Assistant Treasurer

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Joseph P. Arvay Chairman

Michael J. Hrabar Vice Chairman

Roger G. Nagy Vice Chairman

Anthony C. Belce Charles S. Fabian Louis A. Fodor Elmer A. Furedy Barbara A. House Michael R. Kara Michael F. Tomcsak Elmer W. Toth Frank J. Wukovits, Jr.

Frank J. Radvany Secretary of the Board

AUDITING COMMITTEE Charles J. Furedy Robert A. Ivancso Co-Chairmen

Margaret H. Boso Secretary

Dennis A. Chobody Joseph Hamari Ernest J. Mozer, Sr.

CONSULTANTS

Bruce & Bruce Company Actuary

Horovitz, Rudoy & Roteman

C.P.A.

Rothman Gordon Foreman & Groudine, P.C.

General Counsel

Dr. Julius Kesseru Medical Director

Unsolicited articles, letters, manuscripts, pictures and other material submitted to the WILLIAM PENN LIFE are forwarded at the owner's risk, and the WILLIAM PENN LIFE expressly denies any responsibility for their safekeeping or return. The WILLIAM PENN LIFE reserves the right to edit, revise or reject any article submitted for publication

Postmaster: If undelivered, please send form 3579 to: William Penn Association 709 Brighton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15233

Price reduced for September WPA tour

WILLIAM PENN ASSOCIATION

HUNGARY TOUR ’94

September 13 to 27, 1994

RESERVATION FORM

FULL NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP:

PHONE: (Home)______________________________(Work)___________________

ACCOMMODATIONS: □ DOUBLE OCCUPANCY - $2,889.00 PER PERSON* □ SINGLE OCCUPANCY - $3,389.00 PER PERSONCITY OF DEPARTURE:

SIGNATURE:

Send this form along with your deposit of $350.00 per person payable to: "Fugazy International Travel" to:

William Penn Hungary Tour, Fugazy International Travel 770 U.S. Highway No. 1, North Brunswick, NJ 08902

’Prices are for New York departure. All airfares are subject to change without notice. Land prices guaranteed at time of booking.

PLEASE, one person per form. Copies of this form may be made.

NORTH BRUNSWICK, NJ — The price for this September’s William Penn-sponsored tour to Hungary and Austria has been reduced, according to the travel agent arranging the tour.

The price for one person departing from New York City and sharing a double room is now $2,889, which is $60 less than the original price, said Frank Chrinko of Fugazy International Travel in North Brunswick.

The price for one person departing from New York City and booking a single room has been reduced by the same amount and is now $3,389.

Mr. Chrinko noted that the cost for tour participants departing from cities other than New York would vary depending on their city of departure.

Participants who made their reservations before the price reduction went into effect will receive a refund, he said.

Members and friends of the

Association wishing to take advantage of this excellent travel value can reserve their spaces on our tour by completing the reservation form found on this page and returning it to Fugazy International Travel. All reservations must be accompanied by a $350 per person deposit, made payable to "Fugazy International Travel.”

The tour, the second sponsored by the Association this year, will depart on Sept. 13 and return Sept. 27.

The first stop will be Vienna, Austria, where guests will enjoy a two-day stay. The tour will then move on to Hungary with visits to Esterházy Castle, Lake Balaton, the Herend porcelain factory and museum, the Tokaj wine region, the Buda Hills, the Danube Bend and many more of Hungary’s most historic and interesting places and cities.

The tour will conclude with a four-day, four-night stay in Budapest during which guests will

enjoy a dinner cruise on the Danube River and a gala farewell banquet on the final night of the tour.

For more information call Fugazy Travel toll-free at 1-800- 828-4488.

(All airfares are subject to change without notice. Land prices are guaranteed at time of booking.)

When is a Coke a CokeTM?

By Emil W. Herman, Esq., General Counsel

In the past few articles you have been given an overview of intellectual property, and specifically patent and copyright protection. This article will focus on the protection given to the name of an item and the particular color, shape and design associated with that name.

If you are a collector of antiques, you know that certain antiquities are both identified and valued by the mark of the maker placed somewhere on the item. Just as artists marked their paintings by affixing a signature, so the early metal, leather and wood craftsmen would affix a mark to their goods to identify the producer. The concept behind these "trade” marks has been carried into current times.

Trademark protections is not guaranteed under the Constitution, as are patent and copyright protection, but is supervised by the federal government as part of its power over interstate commerce. Originally, a trademark could not be registered until it had been used in interstate commerce. In 1988, however, the Lanham Act was amended to allow a producer to "pre-register” a trademark. The pre-registration period is limited, and, except in special circumstances, cannot be extended. To maintain the benefits of preregistration, therefore, the holder of the mark must use the mark in interstate commerce during the preregistration period.

The trademark registration process benefits three groups. First, it protects the holder of the registered mark. The date of registration establishes priority of use by the holder. The holder of a registered mark can not only enforce that mark in the federal courts, but also has greater statutory rights than would be available at common law. Moreover, registration of the mark is considered nationwide notice to prevent anyone else, even innocently, from using the same or a similar mark.

Second, the registration process protects competitors, who can object to registration of a particular mark for various reasons. Competitors can object to registration of marks which contain surnames, geographic areas as part of the name, or marks which are not distinctive, but merely descriptive of the item to which they are attached.

Surnames and geographic areas are not initially registerable as trademarks because everyone with the same surname, and every producer from a certain geographic area should be able to use his or her name, or that particular geographic area as part of the trademark for their product, even if the goods and producers will be in direct competition. Marks which are merely descriptive of the product on which they will be used likewise should not be registered. To be registerable, the mark must be distinctive. A fanciful or arbitrary name (Apple Computers, Camel Cigarettes) is distinctive. "Lite Beer,” however, only describes the caloric or alcohol content of the product and is not distinctive. Initially, therefore, it was not registerable because it would be unfair to preclude other producers of that same type of product from using the same descriptive term.

Marks which cannot be initially registered, however, can become

registerable at a later date, if the mark or name of the product becomes so well known to the consumer that it no longer is merely descriptive, but actually has achieved a "secondary meaning” in the eyes of the consuming public. Kentucky Fried Chicken and Bob Evans Restaurants are those type of products which, while they could not be registered marks initially, are now protected from competition because of their recognition by the consuming public. Any mark which has been exclusively and continually used in commerce for five consecutive years is presumed to have achieved a secondary meaning, and can then be registered.

Consumers are the third group who benefit from the trademark registration process. The focus of the registration process often is on the similarity between a registered mark, and one seeking to be registered. In those instances, the focus of the Trademark Office is whether the marks would be confusingly similar to the consuming public. Thus, an attempt to register a clay product for children under the name "Fun Dough” was refused because the mark was so confusingly similar to "PlayDoh.” The intent is that you come to associate a certain quality to goods of a certain producer, and should be able to rely on that mark as an assurance that the goods will be of the same quality.

Mere registration of a mark is not a lifelong license to use that mark unhampered, as is the case in a copyright. Rather, a registered mark may lose its distinctiveness, especially if its producer does not protect its rights. Aspirin was originally a registered mark of the Bayer company. In the eyes and mind of the consuming public, however, aspirin came to represent any number of analgesic pain relievers, regardless of the manufacturer. Because consumers no longer associate aspirin solely with Bayer, Bayer can no longer prevent other manufacturers from using the name aspirin.

One producer who assiduously protects its mark is the Coca-Cola Company, which has a staff of personnel who travel nationwide ordering Coke in restaurants and then testing the chemical content of the drink delivered to determine that it is in fact a Coke. If the product served is not a Coke, the restaurant is notified and directed to serve only the product requested. Have you been in a restaurant and asked for a Coke and been asked if Pepsi is "OK”? That could well be the result of Coca-Cola’s efforts to protect its mark, and explains when a Coke is a Coke.

The owner of a patent, copyright or trademark has certain statutorily created rights. Absent law, however, there are certain rights that have evolved from decisions of our court system and from the "common law.” These will be discussed in the last article on intellectual property next month.

Emil W. Herman, Esq., is general counsel to William Penn Association and senior member of the Pittsburgh law firm of Rothman Gordon Foreman ■& Groudine, P.C.