6 ms·

> Grace™ Hopper™ Can anyone with more legal knowledge share how they trademarked the name of Grace Hopper?

adolph 3y ago
It looks like two separate trademarks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics
- jabl 3y ago
  I think it's more due to this device combines a "Grace" CPU and a "Hopper" GPU, thus creating a "Grace Hopper" superchip.
mk_stjames 3y ago
Something to do with Grace Hopper being an actual person (although she is deceased) and thus not being to trademark the entire name?
- jabl 3y ago
  Hopper is the name of the GPU architecture, and Grace is the name of the CPU. Combining them in a device gets you a "Grace Hopper" superchip. (And yes, I'd guess the codenames where chosen back in the day with an eye towards combining them in the same device.)
  - jsheard 3y ago
    There's one funny exception to the rule of Nvidia naming their GPU architectures after just the surname of a famous scientist - they always refer to the "Ada Lovelace" architecture using her full name, presumably to avoid association with the other famous Lovelace.
  - ConceptJunkie 3y ago
    I think it would be interesting to compare this with the Apple BHA. Although in this case, Admiral Hopper's family would have to take up the fight.
dathinab 3y ago
EDIT: To be clear I'm not a legal expert. Trademarks are context specific and you can trademark "common terms" IF (and at lest theoretically only if) it's used in a very narrow use-case which by itself isn't confusable with the generic term. The best example here is Apple which is a generic term but trademarked in context of phones/computer/music manufacturing (and by now a bunch of other things). Through there had been an Apple music label with a bit of back and force of legal cases (and some IMHO very questionable court rulings) which in the end Ended by Apple buying that Label. So theoretically it's not too bad. Practically big companies like Apple, Nvidia and similar can just swamp smaller companies with absurd legal fees to force their win (AFIK this is Metas strategie because I honestly have no idea how they think the term Meta for data processing is trademarkable), to make it worse local curt have often shown to not properly apply the law in such conflicts if the other party is from an other country (one or two US states are infamous for very biased legal decision in this kind of cases). So yeah at the core this aspect of the trademark system is not a terrible idea, but the execution is sadly often fairly lacking. And even high profile cases of trademark abuse often have no consequences if it's a "favorite big company". (For balance negative EU example do include Lego and it's 3d trademark and absurdly biased curt rulings, or Ferrero and it's Kinder (german. Children) trademark on Chocolate). EDIT: also not the two TM: Grace™ Hopper™ both Grace and Hopper are generic terms you can under some circumstances trademark and then use together, but while probably legal you would likely want to avoid trademarking (Grace Hopper)™
Symmetry 3y ago
Trademark are always about use in a particular context. Apple has a a trademark on computers using the name "Apple" even though that's been a word for a food for centuries. And if you want produce a line of bulldozers and brand them "Apple Bulldozers" you can do that and get your own trademark on the use of the word "Apple" in that context.
- voakbasda 3y ago
  I really would like to see someone try this, but I do not think it will end well. Apple would find a way to squash the mark. They have sued many businesses that dared to use "Apple" in their clearly unrelated businesses, and I have no reason to believe that this case would be any different. Practically speaking, trademarks cover whatever can be litigated successfully.
  - speg 3y ago
    Perhaps, but there are indeed some existing that use Apple in their name: https://www.applebank.com/ https://www.applebank.com/ http://www.applecorps.com/ http://www.applecorps.com/ https://www.appleleisuregroup.com/ https://www.appleleisuregroup.com/
    - internetter 3y ago
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe-trademark-battle-apple-germany https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe... :)
  - mousetree 3y ago
    See the disputes between Apple Corps (Beatles) and Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
    - fennecfoxy 3y ago
      And of course the famous agreement from the Beatles of "okay fine, but you can only use the name if you don't get into music" Cue Apple Music, lmao. It's a suit-and-tie'd cult, I swear.
adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago
Leaving aside the legality, I find it tacky to use the names of dead people in advertisements. Grace Hopper did not endorse this product. We have no idea what she would have thought of Nvidia. Yet the lawyers are now fighting over the right to use her name and legacy to "create shareholder value". The worst offender is Tesla, because I'm pretty sure he would have hated that company.
- anaganisk 3y ago
  it's just flattery, same as naming a road, Martin Luther King drive, Washington boulevard, etc. They may or may not have approved all this, but this just signifies that you want them to be remembered in your own way.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    I wonder if it's safe to name something "Sagan" now [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_7100#Codename_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_7100#Codename_...
  - bradlys 3y ago
    I think naming a public road after someone is a lot different than naming a private company's product after someone.
    - geodel 3y ago
      Yeah we need a law against it. A lot of people would support such law. Could be defining issue of our times.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        It would be hilarious if Tesla had to change its name to Electricity Cars LLC or whatever
crazypython 3y ago
"™" has no legal meaning. "(R)" means a registered trademark.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  That is not true. (TM) has a legal meaning. It's weaker than an (R), but it is still an enforceable trademark. It's similar to creating a work covered by copyright vs. registering it with the copyright office.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    Affixing (TM) does not make something an enforceable trademark. Trademark rights are established by use of the mark in commerce. A (TM) is used to put others on notice that a word or design is being used as a trademark, which could potentially be evidence of the intent of an alleged infringer in a subsequent lawsuit. Intent is relevant because it affects damages and other remedies.
balls187 3y ago
They didn’t. Grace is a trade mark. Hopper is a trade mark. Hence each term having it’s own TM.

It looks like two separate trademarks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics

jabl 3y ago
I think it's more due to this device combines a "Grace" CPU and a "Hopper" GPU, thus creating a "Grace Hopper" superchip.

mk_stjames 3y ago

Something to do with Grace Hopper being an actual person (although she is deceased) and thus not being to trademark the entire name?

jabl 3y ago
Hopper is the name of the GPU architecture, and Grace is the name of the CPU. Combining them in a device gets you a "Grace Hopper" superchip. (And yes, I'd guess the codenames where chosen back in the day with an eye towards combining them in the same device.)
- jsheard 3y ago
  There's one funny exception to the rule of Nvidia naming their GPU architectures after just the surname of a famous scientist - they always refer to the "Ada Lovelace" architecture using her full name, presumably to avoid association with the other famous Lovelace.
- ConceptJunkie 3y ago
  I think it would be interesting to compare this with the Apple BHA. Although in this case, Admiral Hopper's family would have to take up the fight.

dathinab 3y ago

EDIT: To be clear I'm not a legal expert. Trademarks are context specific and you can trademark "common terms" IF (and at lest theoretically only if) it's used in a very narrow use-case which by itself isn't confusable with the generic term. The best example here is Apple which is a generic term but trademarked in context of phones/computer/music manufacturing (and by now a bunch of other things). Through there had been an Apple music label with a bit of back and force of legal cases (and some IMHO very questionable court rulings) which in the end Ended by Apple buying that Label. So theoretically it's not too bad. Practically big companies like Apple, Nvidia and similar can just swamp smaller companies with absurd legal fees to force their win (AFIK this is Metas strategie because I honestly have no idea how they think the term Meta for data processing is trademarkable), to make it worse local curt have often shown to not properly apply the law in such conflicts if the other party is from an other country (one or two US states are infamous for very biased legal decision in this kind of cases). So yeah at the core this aspect of the trademark system is not a terrible idea, but the execution is sadly often fairly lacking. And even high profile cases of trademark abuse often have no consequences if it's a "favorite big company". (For balance negative EU example do include Lego and it's 3d trademark and absurdly biased curt rulings, or Ferrero and it's Kinder (german. Children) trademark on Chocolate). EDIT: also not the two TM: Grace™ Hopper™ both Grace and Hopper are generic terms you can under some circumstances trademark and then use together, but while probably legal you would likely want to avoid trademarking (Grace Hopper)™

Symmetry 3y ago

Trademark are always about use in a particular context. Apple has a a trademark on computers using the name "Apple" even though that's been a word for a food for centuries. And if you want produce a line of bulldozers and brand them "Apple Bulldozers" you can do that and get your own trademark on the use of the word "Apple" in that context.

voakbasda 3y ago
I really would like to see someone try this, but I do not think it will end well. Apple would find a way to squash the mark. They have sued many businesses that dared to use "Apple" in their clearly unrelated businesses, and I have no reason to believe that this case would be any different. Practically speaking, trademarks cover whatever can be litigated successfully.
- speg 3y ago
  Perhaps, but there are indeed some existing that use Apple in their name: https://www.applebank.com/ https://www.applebank.com/ http://www.applecorps.com/ http://www.applecorps.com/ https://www.appleleisuregroup.com/ https://www.appleleisuregroup.com/
  - internetter 3y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe-trademark-battle-apple-germany https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe... :)
- mousetree 3y ago
  See the disputes between Apple Corps (Beatles) and Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
  - fennecfoxy 3y ago
    And of course the famous agreement from the Beatles of "okay fine, but you can only use the name if you don't get into music" Cue Apple Music, lmao. It's a suit-and-tie'd cult, I swear.

adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago

Leaving aside the legality, I find it tacky to use the names of dead people in advertisements. Grace Hopper did not endorse this product. We have no idea what she would have thought of Nvidia. Yet the lawyers are now fighting over the right to use her name and legacy to "create shareholder value". The worst offender is Tesla, because I'm pretty sure he would have hated that company.

anaganisk 3y ago
it's just flattery, same as naming a road, Martin Luther King drive, Washington boulevard, etc. They may or may not have approved all this, but this just signifies that you want them to be remembered in your own way.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  I wonder if it's safe to name something "Sagan" now [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_7100#Codename_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_7100#Codename_...
- bradlys 3y ago
  I think naming a public road after someone is a lot different than naming a private company's product after someone.
  - geodel 3y ago
    Yeah we need a law against it. A lot of people would support such law. Could be defining issue of our times.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      It would be hilarious if Tesla had to change its name to Electricity Cars LLC or whatever

crazypython 3y ago

"™" has no legal meaning. "(R)" means a registered trademark.

HWR_14 3y ago
That is not true. (TM) has a legal meaning. It's weaker than an (R), but it is still an enforceable trademark. It's similar to creating a work covered by copyright vs. registering it with the copyright office.
- bdowling 3y ago
  Affixing (TM) does not make something an enforceable trademark. Trademark rights are established by use of the mark in commerce. A (TM) is used to put others on notice that a word or design is being used as a trademark, which could potentially be evidence of the intent of an alleged infringer in a subsequent lawsuit. Intent is relevant because it affects damages and other remedies.

balls187 3y ago

They didn’t. Grace is a trade mark. Hopper is a trade mark. Hence each term having it’s own TM.