WordNet removed the word TEFLON from the dictionary

[Victor Steinbok]

It was prudent for DuPont to ask, but it was not prudent for WordNet to
comply with the request. They had no legal obligation to do so. And what
does that do to "Teflon President" now?

     VS-)

On 2/21/2012 11:12 AM, Ronald Butters wrote:
> See =
> http://metapoetika.org/featured/after-dupont-bans-teflon-from-wordnet-the-=
> world-is-their-non-sticky-oyster/#comment-137.
>
> The author reports that WordNet removed the word TEFLON from their =
> dictionary because DuPont, owner of the trademark, asked them to.=20
>
> It is my understanding that DuPont had no legal standing to require such =
> a move, though they may have been prudent to so act. Trademark owners =
> must do more than make sure that they do not misuse the mark themselves. =
> To be totally safe, they must also protest when dictionaries to not give =
> them proper credit. (Dictionaries are sometimes cited in TM infringement =
> cases).=20
>
> On the other hand, one could well argue that WordNet was not fulfillng =
> to their scientific duty. given that TEFLON is a registered trademark =
> and well-known to be just that, a dictionary maker ought to report that =
> aspect of the meaning of the word. See, e.g., NOAD1:
>
> Tef=95lon  n. trademark for POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE.
>   adj. able to withstand criticism or attack with no apparent
> effect: the head of the crime family is known as the
> Teflon Don because of his acquittals in three previous trials.
>
>
> However, WordNet need only have ignored DuPont's request. It is not =
> illegal for a dictionary to report facts of usage, nor would DuPont be =
> able to win a lawsuit against them.  A dictionary has a free-speech =
> right to report that TEFLON is in common metaphorical use. DuPont only =
> has legal rights to block infringement of their mark by someone who =
> would apply it or some highly similar word to a similar product or =
> service, so as to create confusion in the marketplace. That is why DOVE =
> ice cream and DOVE soap cannot sue each other. (There is also a portion =
> of trademark law pertaining to what is known as "dilution"--in which a =
> TM owner can claim that someone else's use of their mark as the name for =
> an unrelated product or service weakens the value of their mark, but, =
> again, I don't think any dictionary definition has ever been found by a =
> court to be using a defined TM as a name, so again the dictionary maker =
> would not be legally vulnerable for merely reporting what it finds to be =
> scientifically true.)
>
> Of course, one might legitimately ask how much responsibility a =
> lexicographer has to identify every TM as such. For example, I know of =
> no dictionary that identifies "Delta" as a registered TM, though it is =
> the name and TM of an airline and a faucet manufacturer. One rule of =
> thumb might be to identify coined terms, and if one overlooks a live TM =
> (as apparently WordNet did) correct the situation, not by leaving the =
> word out entirely, but by showing that it has an alternative use.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org