(I'm an Australian lawyer and will use 'trade mark' as my preferred spelling.)
The headline of this link is misleading. An action doesn't 'violate a trade mark'. An action can infringe the rights that a trade mark owner has (the scope of those rights will be dependent on the location in which the right has been granted and where the action takes place). In common law countries, trade mark rights can refer to statutory rights (which are granted in accordance with a piece of legislation and typically require registration with a government office) and common law rights.
This document is Adobe's guidelines for use of its trade marks. Adobe is saying that, if you follow the guidelines in these documents, then you can be sure that you have not infringed any of Adobe's rights in its trade marks (or at least that Adobe won't sue you alleging that you have).
Whether a failure to follow these guidelines constitutes trade mark infringement is a separate matter. Generally speaking, a trade mark owner has the right to use a trade mark exclusively in the course of trade in respect of a class of products. What does it mean to use a trade mark in the course of trade? This means, for instance, using a particular word or phrase to identify your product. Consumers will then use your trade mark to identify your product in the course of trade (eg. 'Could I please buy a copy of Photoshop?'). An obvious rationale for trade mark rights is to protect consumers from unscrupulous merchants who might call their product Photoshop in order to take advantage of the goodwill Adobe has built up in its product.
However, not every use of a term is in the course of trade. It is not in the course of trade for me to write a Wikipedia article about Photoshop. I would argue it is also not in the course of trade to use photoshop as a verb to refer to the act of digital manipulating an image (such as by using the Photoshop product).
Why does Adobe want to prevent people from doing this? As others have pointed out, if a trade mark falls into common usage, a trade mark owner can lose the ability to register it as a trade mark (trade marks are usually registered for a period of time and must be renewed after that period) and so lose, at the very least, the statutory rights associated with that registration. This then enables competitors to use that term in their products. Good examples of trade marks that have fallen into common usage are elevator, xerox and hoover. Obviously Adobe spends a great deal of money developing and marketing the Photoshop brand. They do not want to see it become a generic term that competitors can use.
That said, usually both trade mark owners and their competitors have little interest in a term becoming generic. You don't see Microsoft going around saying that you should 'google' something. While a trade mark falling into common usage can be a bad thing from an intellectual property perspective, it can of course be a good thing from a marketing perspective. This is why the only people like to cause a trade mark to fall into common usage is the general public (and possibly journalists). So, people like Adobe pay lawyers to draft up these kind of documents to help make sure that doesn't happen.
While I practice law, I must give one of those annoying disclaimers that are part of the reason people hate us: I am not your lawyer and the above should not be treated as legal advice. If you are concerned as to whether you are infringing a trade mark, I recommend speaking to a lawyer in your local area.
This is a result of trademark law rather than any particular idiocy on the part of Adobe. Guidelines like this get made fun of on the internet fairly regularly, but it's always the company that's ridiculed rather than the laws. Ultimately, any company that wants to hold on to its trademarks has to do something like this.
Why should the laws be ridiculed? They prevent companies from promoting their trade marks as generic terms and then claiming a monopoly on them - rather like the old days when people would sneak patented technologies into IEEE standards and the like and then demand royalties from everyone who implemented them.
If the cost to society of preventing this is limited to one mildly absurdist press release per company, it seems like a pretty good law.
Yep. They want to avoid it becoming generic. They're far too late, though, to stop photoshopping from becoming a verb because these guidelines have been completely ignored by almost everyone for a long time now.
My lexicographer and lawyer colleagues have faced this one many times. As I understand it once a trademark enters common usage as a verb it is safe for inclusion in the dictionary, as a noun it isn't.
I work for a company that deals mainly in brand identity and believe me, these guidelines are not obscure compared to some of the guidelines we have to follow when doing artwork.
Although you could argue that people using the term "photoshopped" has actually increased Adobes revenue over the years due to the exposure they are only trying to protect the brand they have built.
There have been a few cases of this over the years, some other comments cover one of them, "Google it", "I have just bought a Hoover (instead of vacuum)". Photoshopped gets used as a generic term but I think Adobe should be embracing this slang usage as they are part of a collective where their branding has become so important that it has replaced the original term.
Adobe won't see it this way though obviously.
I do take brand identity seriously but I couldn't begin to imagine having a conversation with someone where I would say, "Have you used Adobe Photoshop software to edit that image".
Don't most new companies aim for product names that are easily verb'ed? "Google it", "Xerox it", "Reddit", etc.
"The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software."
"This writer has a stick up his butt".
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Because so many people are using Apple's Photoshop, Google Photoshop and NeXT's Photoshop. Shouldn't they be glad that their product name is SO ubiquitous that they don't NEED stuff like this?
Can't believe that there is someone actually working at Adobe and thinking about these use cases. In my opinion, they should feel proud of the fact that the software is so popular that it is being used as a common verb. And here they, explicitly mentioning that this is incorrect. Sometimes, I just can't understand organizations.
[+] [-] pyrmont|14 years ago|reply
The headline of this link is misleading. An action doesn't 'violate a trade mark'. An action can infringe the rights that a trade mark owner has (the scope of those rights will be dependent on the location in which the right has been granted and where the action takes place). In common law countries, trade mark rights can refer to statutory rights (which are granted in accordance with a piece of legislation and typically require registration with a government office) and common law rights.
This document is Adobe's guidelines for use of its trade marks. Adobe is saying that, if you follow the guidelines in these documents, then you can be sure that you have not infringed any of Adobe's rights in its trade marks (or at least that Adobe won't sue you alleging that you have).
Whether a failure to follow these guidelines constitutes trade mark infringement is a separate matter. Generally speaking, a trade mark owner has the right to use a trade mark exclusively in the course of trade in respect of a class of products. What does it mean to use a trade mark in the course of trade? This means, for instance, using a particular word or phrase to identify your product. Consumers will then use your trade mark to identify your product in the course of trade (eg. 'Could I please buy a copy of Photoshop?'). An obvious rationale for trade mark rights is to protect consumers from unscrupulous merchants who might call their product Photoshop in order to take advantage of the goodwill Adobe has built up in its product.
However, not every use of a term is in the course of trade. It is not in the course of trade for me to write a Wikipedia article about Photoshop. I would argue it is also not in the course of trade to use photoshop as a verb to refer to the act of digital manipulating an image (such as by using the Photoshop product).
Why does Adobe want to prevent people from doing this? As others have pointed out, if a trade mark falls into common usage, a trade mark owner can lose the ability to register it as a trade mark (trade marks are usually registered for a period of time and must be renewed after that period) and so lose, at the very least, the statutory rights associated with that registration. This then enables competitors to use that term in their products. Good examples of trade marks that have fallen into common usage are elevator, xerox and hoover. Obviously Adobe spends a great deal of money developing and marketing the Photoshop brand. They do not want to see it become a generic term that competitors can use.
That said, usually both trade mark owners and their competitors have little interest in a term becoming generic. You don't see Microsoft going around saying that you should 'google' something. While a trade mark falling into common usage can be a bad thing from an intellectual property perspective, it can of course be a good thing from a marketing perspective. This is why the only people like to cause a trade mark to fall into common usage is the general public (and possibly journalists). So, people like Adobe pay lawyers to draft up these kind of documents to help make sure that doesn't happen.
While I practice law, I must give one of those annoying disclaimers that are part of the reason people hate us: I am not your lawyer and the above should not be treated as legal advice. If you are concerned as to whether you are infringing a trade mark, I recommend speaking to a lawyer in your local area.
[+] [-] marcusf|14 years ago|reply
Anyway, it doesn't seem inappropriate to at least make a show about trying to enforce it.
[+] [-] lambada|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kennywinker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tikhonj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zb|14 years ago|reply
If the cost to society of preventing this is limited to one mildly absurdist press release per company, it seems like a pretty good law.
[+] [-] Natsu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endual|14 years ago|reply
Incorrect: Photoshop's new features are impressive.
OK, think I've got it!
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thekeywordgeek|14 years ago|reply
My lexicographer and lawyer colleagues have faced this one many times. As I understand it once a trademark enters common usage as a verb it is safe for inclusion in the dictionary, as a noun it isn't.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Hoover#m_en_gb03861... http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photoshop
[+] [-] valjavec|14 years ago|reply
Correct: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software. Incorrect: Take a look at the new features in PS.
Adobe.... :/
[+] [-] mattmanser|14 years ago|reply
http://developer.googleapps.com/branding-guidelines
[+] [-] cynix|14 years ago|reply
http://i.imgur.com/9xoAI.png
[+] [-] sad_bug_killer|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] J_Darnley|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrislomax|14 years ago|reply
Although you could argue that people using the term "photoshopped" has actually increased Adobes revenue over the years due to the exposure they are only trying to protect the brand they have built.
There have been a few cases of this over the years, some other comments cover one of them, "Google it", "I have just bought a Hoover (instead of vacuum)". Photoshopped gets used as a generic term but I think Adobe should be embracing this slang usage as they are part of a collective where their branding has become so important that it has replaced the original term.
Adobe won't see it this way though obviously.
I do take brand identity seriously but I couldn't begin to imagine having a conversation with someone where I would say, "Have you used Adobe Photoshop software to edit that image".
[+] [-] kellyreid|14 years ago|reply
Don't most new companies aim for product names that are easily verb'ed? "Google it", "Xerox it", "Reddit", etc.
"The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software." "This writer has a stick up his butt".
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Because so many people are using Apple's Photoshop, Google Photoshop and NeXT's Photoshop. Shouldn't they be glad that their product name is SO ubiquitous that they don't NEED stuff like this?
Oh lawyers. You so crazy.
[+] [-] joelthelion|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squealingrat|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthewlehner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] product50|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|14 years ago|reply
So now you understand organizations just a bit better.
Always remember: People are rational. If you don't understand them it's usually because you don't know something. (OK, not always :)