or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Arm's Reach pushing WAHMs OUT of REACH!!! UGH!!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arm's Reach pushing WAHMs OUT of REACH!!! UGH!!!!! - Page 4

post #61 of 78
Originally posted by RowansDad
I'm sensing a hostillity here to trademark owners in general. Look, a trademark is often a valuable property of a seller or manufacturer, because it is the symbol of the company's goodwill and of its products and services.
Ummm....not me, but I DO have a "hostility" to the trademarking of otherwise common words or phrases. I mean, Kleenex (TM) didn't exist in the english language until the company invented it, then, 'cause so many people used it and the PRODUCT became ubiquitous and then the word started getting used generically. So, I can see the point (same as Xerox(TM) ).

HOWEVER, when you've got a common word in the language, widely used, then a company trademarking it just seems like a cheap method to hijack the IDEA behind the word(s). My latest peeve of this sort is what I see on ads for a FOX show that shall remain nameless 'cause I think it is alternatingly boring and nasty: "Fair and Balanced(TM)" Especially since they AREN'T fair nor balanced at all!
post #62 of 78
Originally posted by sohj
Ummm....not me, but I DO have a "hostility" to the trademarking of otherwise common words or phrases.
Not to sound too flip but how far does this 'hostillity' extend? Apple for computers, Dominos for sugar, Body Shop for of skin care, cosmetics, hair care, beauty products, Baby Bunk for infant beds (whoops). Perfectly ordinary, everyday words. Trademarks depend on their context.

I have yet to see anyone here show that the phrase at issue was common before Arm's Reach adopted it and before it was registered. Some folks *think* it was but could it be that the general public has used it in a generic manner *after* Arms Reach marketed it?

I mean, what exactly are all of these folks selling anyway but a bed/crib/bassinet that can be strategically placed next to an adult bed?
post #63 of 78
I think that you're (excuse the expression ) mixing apples and oranges. Yes, it depends on context. So, Apple chose their name (I think) based on a reference (a literary device) to some metaphor that appealed to them. They have not gone after people who make puns about "apple-polishing" or people who give an apple to the teacher. But, the word "apple" didn't have any direct connection to the technology of computers before they chose the name. Same with Domino Sugar. There is no IDEA behind these words that they are co-opting, except perhaps the most oblique one by a reference. And Body Shop actually I found annoying. I thought it was intended as a 'clever' pun, but I don't know if that is true.

So, you didn't address my comment about "Fair and Balanced(TM)".

What do you think about that context?
post #64 of 78
Originally posted by sohj
There is no IDEA behind these words that they are co-opting, except perhaps the most oblique one by a reference.
As opposed to a trademark such as Baby Bunk! Thanks for the clarification. Btw, good one on the apples and oranges thing (but wait...http://www.orange.com/english/default.asp?bhcp=1)

As for Fox' registered mark FAIR & BALANCED, as unctuous as it may appear, the fact of the matter is that when people, whether they like that cable news network or not, hear/see that phrase used, one identifies it with Fox. And that, ultimately, is what a trademark/service mark is supposed to do, identify and distinguish the source of the goods/services of one party from those of others.
post #65 of 78
OK...I have dug up some articles prior to 1997, text reading "co-sleep", "co-sleeping" and "co-sleepers".

Here iS ONE: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Is Infant-Parent CoSleeping Protective?

By: James J. McKenna
Annual Review of Anthropology 1996
Volume 25 pages 201-216
(sorry...I don't know how to provide the link!)


Yes, I agree that a trademark should be granted to protect those goods/services of a company ....but in this case, the word has been used before the application date.
post #66 of 78
I also looked into Dr. McKenna's site at:


Here you can find all of his articles...dating back to 1980.

I put a call into the Mother-Child Sleep Lab to request the titles of additional articles using the term co-sleeper. I will keep you all posted!
post #67 of 78
Well, only have 9 votes so far on the poll, but 5 of those say it's a co-sleeper. I've tried to make it un-biased. We really need more people answering. I'll put in another bump to bring it up on the list.
post #68 of 78
Madrone~ I answered your poll in the other forum. I felt I should clarify my vote but didn't want to throw off the statistical accuracy of your poll by pointing this out there I said I call it a co-sleeper, but I call it that because I have an Arm's Reach Co-Sleeper.

I had never really heard of the term co-sleeping before I had my dd (in '01). I had heard of the term "family bed". I saw an ad for an Arm's Reach in Mothering and asked and received it for a shower gift. So I call it a co-sleeper. If I put another small bed next to my bed I don't think I would call it a co-sleeper. I would probably call it a bed.

So I guess I wanted to point out that although I answered "co-sleeper" on the poll, it is only because I have an Arms Reach co-sleeper. I may be the only person in that situation....but I thought I should point that out

post #69 of 78
Dr. James McKenna claims credit for coining the word co-sleeping back in the mid 1980's. Dr. McKenna answered an e-mail that I sent him and I have put him in touch with the owner of Baby Bunk. I would like to share a statement of his with all of you.

"I do not believe anyone should have a lock on the words co-sleep, co-sleeper or co-sleeping. It can be harmful to the development of the natural mind set....about the commonality of co-sleeping - for the culture. My opinion is that the more the words "co-sleep" and "co-sleeping" are used, the better we will all be...as it signifies a generic aspect of behavior".

Thank you Dr. McKenna!
post #70 of 78
Don't forget to forward that email to Dr. Sears:
post #71 of 78
Dr. Sears endorses the Arm's Reach Co-Sleeper and I'm sure gets paid a nice penny to do so.

Dr. McKennna also mentioned in our correspondence, and I quote:

"I have no financial interest--not would I accept any--for any product called a cosleeper for fear of undermining my own research credibility as I have a strong belief in its importance and obviously I could never let that be compromised."

Just for the record.....Dr Sears makes numerous references in his book to Dr. McKenna's research. Which came first...the chicken or the egg????
post #72 of 78
Wow Stevie's MOm- You ROCK!! Thank you for writing James Mc Kenna!!

post #73 of 78
LIke I said, forward the email to the good Doctor!
post #74 of 78
:Rowans Dad: Since you have been following this all along...and have added so much info to help all of us understand the legal issues at hand...would you mind putting yourself in touch with the WAHM from Baby Bunk? I know that she is looking for legal assistance on this whole trademark issue
post #75 of 78

According to information from the USPTO's trademark database, Baby Bunk has legal counsel.
post #76 of 78
Double post. Anyone notice the Web is really hiccuping today?
post #77 of 78
You can email the mom at baby buk by going to www.babybunk.com . I happen to be in touch with her and she is following this thread, she is an MDC mamma, and I know hta tshe does have legal counsel. HTH
post #78 of 78
Any "new" news? This is fascinating to me on more than one level

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Arm's Reach pushing WAHMs OUT of REACH!!! UGH!!!!!